Do you want to make combustion engines in cars illegal!?

[sk8er913]

Ok, before you all go off posting unhappy comments, I am making this so that it benefits both the world and those who like cars! I will update this with advice from all of you.

The reasons
- Combustion engines from cars emit 50-60% of our CO(Carbon Monoxide) AND NO(Nitrogen Oxide).
- Carbon Monoxide (and other poisonous gases as well)) are produced when fuel is not completely burned, which kills about 800 people per year in Canada+USA which are COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE!!
- In Germany 50% of the Black Forrest has died due to acidic rain, which was caused by Nitrous Oxide emissions.
-Carbon Dioxide is also produced by combustion engines which heats up the atmosphere and can cause mass extinction.

Proposed law
- Declare a year in which to make it illegal for example 2025. So that consumers, manufacturers and other industry have time to prepare for the change.
- It is only illegal to drive combustion powered cars on public roads, such as highways and freeways.
- It is not illegal to own or trade the cars.
- Driving on private property and racetracks is acceptable
- Government must ensure a racetrack open to the public and easily accessible to highly populated areas. For example: Acquire one in the California bay area and one in Southern California to serve the whole state. Please take the Nurburgring in Germany as an example for how to run a publicly open racetrack.

Punishment
- $1000 ticket, similar to littering


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Revised facts 2/19/15

What do you think? Would it keep most people happy?


🤬 it I've just decided to let the oil run out. It's not much longer.

 

[DK]

The first problem I spotted with your proposal was, who defines a "classic" car? Sure, you might get near-unanimity on the likes of the Ferrari 250 GTO or Lambo Miura, but what about cars like the F40, McLaren F1, Bugatti Veyron, Lamborghini Sesto Elemento?

 

[Pootis]

Then all the oil companies would be pissed.

Do you know just how many cars there are in the U.S alone that have these engines? That would be a lot of cars that couldn't be used if there was such a law and most people don't want to buy a new car.

 

[Johnnypenso]

What do you think? Would it keep most people happy?

No.

 

[sk8er913]

The first problem I spotted with your proposal was, who defines a "classic" car? Sure, you might get near-unanimity on the likes of the Ferrari 250 GTO or Lambo Miura, but what about cars like the F40, McLaren F1, Bugatti Veyron, Lamborghini Sesto Elemento?

Classic as in everything before the law is enforced so in the example 2025 or older. although I didnt mewan to put classic; I missed that in the reread thank you.

 

[Exorcet]

It would be a horrible law. If you want to cut down on emissions and pollution, then do what you can to further that goal. There is no reason to force other people to go along with you.

 

[sk8er913]

Then all the oil companies would be pissed.

Do you know just how many cars there are in the U.S alone that have these engines? That would be a lot of cars that couldn't be used if there was such a law and most people don't want to buy a new car.

Manufacturers would be happy; 300 million people would need a new car... lol.

It would be a horrible law. If you want to cut down on emissions and pollution, then do what you can to further that goal. There is no reason to force other people to go along with you.

There is no reason to force other people to go along with you.

The 800 people that die every year in US+Can care.

 

[niky]

So, how would people get around? With the one billion plus electric vehicles that don't exist?

The current world fleet is at well over a billion cars. We're currently adding only half-a-million (or less) EVs a year to the tally. Double up production (which is barely feasible due to the lack of battery supply), and it would still take a thousand years to replace every current vehicle on the road.

If we actually have enough lithium and rare earths to make those cars. Which, estimates show, we do not.

Your next challenge is finding the $40,000,000,000,000 required to reequip the world fleet.

You could cheap out and make everyone take the electric bus. Which saves you a few trillion dollars, unless you need buses that can go five hundred miles on a single charge (the EV buses I'm aware of that currently exist only do a hundred-odd miles or less, and take several hours to recharge). Still... let's say it'll take you at least 10-20 trillion dollars.

Good luck.

-

While you're at it, propose a move that outlaws all those coal and bunker diesel power plants, because, last I looked, they contributed more to pollution than cars. Set aside another (hundred?) trillion dollars to re-equip every country on Earth with solar plants and wind turbines that we don't have the capacity or materials to build at the moment. (and, if we did, we don't nearly have enough land area for all the PV panels... )

 

[sk8er913]

So, how would people get around? With the one billion plus electric vehicles that don't exist?

The current world fleet is at well over a billion cars. We're currently adding only half-a-million (or less) EVs a year to the tally. Double up production (which is barely feasible due to the lack of battery supply), and it would still take a thousand years to replace every current vehicle on the road.

If we actually have enough lithium and rare earths to make those cars. Which, estimates show, we do not.

Your next challenge is finding the $40,000,000,000,000 required to reequip the world fleet.

You could cheap out and make everyone take the electric bus. Which saves you a few trillion dollars, unless you need buses that can go five hundred miles on a single charge (the EV buses I'm aware of that currently exist only do a hundred-odd miles or less, and take several hours to recharge). Still... let's say it'll take you at least 10-20 trillion dollars.

Good luck.

-

While you're at it, propose a move that outlaws all those coal and bunker diesel power plants, because, last I looked, they contributed more to pollution than cars. Set aside another (hundred?) trillion dollars to re-equip every country on Earth with solar plants and wind turbines that we don't have the capacity or materials to build at the moment. (and, if we did, we don't nearly have enough land area for all the PV panels... )

last I looked, they contributed more to pollution than cars.
In Los Angeles 53% of the pollution is from Cars. And if you cut production of combustion engine powered theres your extra production, and in the US we would only need 400 million cars, not 1 Billion.

 

[Dennisch]

Electric airplanes?

 

[sk8er913]

Electric airplanes?

There already are some. lol. XD
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/impossible-electric-airplane-takes-flight/

 

[Pseudopod]

For the time being, completely banning combustion engines in new cars is going to be very problematic. I also don't think complete bans are a good idea in general. What you could do is tax engine emissions very high, so that the vast majority of people would buy hybrids with really good fuel economy, rather than 100% combustion cars. A large percentage of daily driving is done over distances that can be fully covered by a reasonably small battery.

Until we can get electric cars with 600+ km range on a single charge, I think we'll have to settle for that. The reason I want more than 600 km is in order to take into account the extra energy use during winter, and also after you've lost 20% of your max capacity after a decade or so. Winter + battery wear would make 400 km too little for me, but 600+ would cut it. I really want to be able to drive to my parents on a single charge.

As for materials required to make batteries in the future, who knows what the future holds. I think we'll need several decades to fully replace all our current cars with hybrid/electrics, and by then, we might have other battery technologies that either require less lithium to keep the same amount of charge, or perhaps use entirely different materials.

 

[Exorcet]

There is no reason to force other people to go along with you.

The 800 people that die every year in US+Can care.

That's still not a reason. If these people don't want to risk any contact with burnt fuel, they can go move into self sustained air tight shelters. They're not being assaulted by someone with a car's exhaust pipe, they're choosing to live around other people (and gaining benefits for doing so). Their health is not everyone else's responsibility, it's their own. Either they risk being in range of hydrocarbon pollution or they make it their top priority to avoid the stuff entirely. IF they choose the latter, it'll be their own work and money that would have to go toward that goal.

What you could do is tax engine emissions very high, so that the vast majority of people would buy hybrids with really good fuel economy, rather than 100% combustion cars.

I'd rather just have all the people calling for emissions control, etc, foot the bill themselves. If it's so important then they should be willing to pay for it.

 

[sk8er913]

For the time being, completely banning combustion engines in new cars is going to be very problematic. I also don't think complete bans are a good idea in general. What you could do is tax engine emissions very high, so that the vast majority of people would buy hybrids with really good fuel economy, rather than 100% combustion cars. A large percentage of daily driving is done over distances that can be fully covered by a reasonably small battery.

Until we can get electric cars with 600+ km range on a single charge, I think we'll have to settle for that. The reason I want more than 600 km is in order to take into account the extra energy use during winter, and also after you've lost 20% of your max capacity after a decade or so. Winter + battery wear would make 400 km too little for me, but 600+ would cut it. I really want to be able to drive to my parents on a single charge.

I was thinking about adding in Hybrids, but I'm not sure how it would be enforced so I went to the extreme EV. Although I think hybrids would be awesome...

 

[Famine]

Combustion engines from cars emit 50-60% of our created CO2

You are about an order of magnitude out.

The transportation sector doesn't even account for 20% of human carbon dioxide emissions and passenger cars only just about make up a third of that.

 

[sk8er913]

You are about an order of magnitude out.

The transportation sector doesn't even account for 20% of human carbon dioxide emissions and passenger cars only just about make up a third of that.

That's not what I learned in college last week.

 

[Pseudopod]

Well, most new cars log a lot of data. If a police patrol suspects that you were using the combustion engine within the city, they could give you two choices: A juicy fine, or let you prove that you didn't use the combustion engine, for example by letting technicans extract the data logs from your car's ECU. Ideally, the cars should have an easily accessible (but difficult to falsify) log that you could just show the officer right away, without having to go through technicians.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Manufacturers would be happy; 300 million people would need a new car... lol.

The 800 people that die every year in US+Can care.

600 people a year are killed on bicycles. Now what?

 

[sk8er913]

Well, most new cars log a lot of data. If a police patrol suspects that you were using the combustion engine within the city, they could give you two choices: A juicy fine, or let you prove that you didn't use the combustion engine by letting technicans extract the data logs from your car's ECU.

I like that; but I'm still not sure how to incorporate it

600 people a year are killed on bicycles. Now what?

I'm moving to a city were the number is 7,500 for that one city. And I hope that having the #1 world economy change it would help foreign countries to change as well. Also I'd rather not have to move to in Russia/Alaska in 50 years.

 

[Pseudopod]

Well, you need a system that doesn't let the cops just throw claims of combustion usage left and right, gambling on that the drivers won't go through the hassle of the legal system to get out of it.

It might require some sort of standardised data monitoring interface that the cops could just plug their device into and get information about the last hour of driving.

However, I'm not sure if that level of control would be necessary. Fuel costs money, and if you're just doing your daily commuting, why on earth would you want to spend more money than you had to? Using electric power would be more economical almost all the time.

 

[ildd]

600 people a year are killed on bicycles. Now what?

13 people a year are killed by vending machines.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

In Los Angeles 53% of the pollution is from Cars.

Great. How is that statistic relevant when we're discussing a law that would affect an entire nation?

Also, I'm 100% sure that that statistic in incorrect. What's your source?

And if you cut production of combustion engine powered theres your extra production, and in the US we would only need 400 million cars, not 1 Billion.

Factories that produce internal combustion engines are not capable of producing batteries and electric motors. You can't just change what a factory produces, manufacturing doesn't work like that.

 

[Not_A_Guest]

Hah, this suggestion sounds like a joke. Banning combustion engines? There is no way that lobbyists would let that through even if there were enough dummies petitioning for the banning of combustion engines.
You've got the oil, metalworking, and the car companies themselves resisting such a sudden move.

Also last I checked there's a law saying that the average MPG over a certain manufacturer's lineup is going to have to be above 30 MPG by 2025 (don't quote me on these figures because I don't know the exact numbers). Having combustion engines completely off by that point is just off old grandpa's rocker.

 

[sk8er913]

Hah, this suggestion sounds like a joke. Banning combustion engines? There is no way that lobbyists would let that through even if there were enough dummies petitioning for the banning of combustion engines.
You've got the oil, metalworking, and the car companies themselves resisting such a sudden move.

Also last I checked there's a law saying that the average MPG over a certain manufacturer's lineup is going to have to be above 30 MPG by 2025 (don't quote me on these figures because I don't know the exact numbers). Having combustion engines completely off by that point is just off old grandpa's rocker.

Why would the car companies not want to sell millions of extra cars?

 

[ildd]

So what the hell does the second part of the question have in relation to the first part?

 

[Not_A_Guest]

Why would the car companies not want to sell millions of extra cars?

Because they'd have to develop new technologies and structures to keep up with the demand that was suddenly created. They'd have to build new factories which would cost trillions of dollars which nobody can compensate for, and would ironically create an immeasurable amount of greenhouse gases.

I see absolutely no benefit out of getting rid of internal combustion. Hey, while we're at it, let's ban cows too. Those create an unbelievable amount of greenhouse farts. Why not create giant corks to plug up volcanoes that throw ash into the air and harm the environment as well?

 

[Exorcet]

Why would the car companies not want to sell millions of extra cars?

It takes time and money to develop cars. All the automakers probably have an idea of what their line up will look like in 2025. You are telling them that all the time and money they have put toward that must be scrapped. Now they need to rush to develop completely new strategies and then pray that it's cost effective.

This will be shoved on a population of people who will have to pick between buying a perfectly useful car that the law is forcing into obsolescence (meaning you need to buy two cars instead of one now) or living life without a car at all until auto makers catch up to the law.

Again, if you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce your own. Simple and effective.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Why would the car companies not want to sell millions of extra cars?

Because they can't, not in the scenario you've created.

 

[Imari]

Why would the car companies not want to sell millions of extra cars?

I'd like you to think for a second about how those millions of cars are going to be made.

Where is the power to run the factories to meet this huge spike in demand going to come from? How large of an impact on the environment is that going to have?

Where are all the extra metals/ore and plastics going to come from? How are they going to be extracted and refined? How much of an impact on the environment is that going to have?

If you can't answer these questions, then how can you be sure that what you're proposing is a net benefit for the environment?

==========

I'd also like to see some sources on some of these claims you're making, if only so that I can actually read more about them.

- Combustion engines from cars emit 50-60% of our created CO2

Like Famine, I don't think this is right. There are other massive sources of CO2, like industry and power generation.

You need a credible source for this, please.

...CO(Carbon Monoxide (and other poisonous gases as well)) which kills about 800 people per year in Canada+USA...

Killed by random CO floating around in the air? Or killed by incidents in which extremely high CO concentrations are encountered? I'm not sure that CO is at all the same as the health issues from chronic low levels of lead, which is why we have unleaded fuel now.

Again, a source please so that we can see what is actually being measured by those 800 peoples deaths. If it's merely 800 suicides in a garage, it's not a useful statistic for measuring the impact of car emissions.

- In Germany 50% of the Black Forrest has died due to poisonous rain, which was caused by emissions.

I'm guessing acid rain? Which is caused by emissions from lots of things, like industry. It's much less of a problem these days than it used to be say thirty or forty years ago, but the effects on soil chemistry are still around. Removing cars isn't going to change that.

Is this still an ongoing problem, or is it just residual from the 1980's? If you've got a source on the problem, it will tell us.

In Los Angeles 53% of the pollution is from Cars.

That's a big claim. You need a source on this one.

 

[Famine]

That's not what I learned in college last week.

Then either you aren't being taught the right thing or you didn't take the right message.

About 90% of our CO2 emissions are from burning fossil fuels. Around one quarter of that (20% of the total, give or take) is transportation, with the majority coming from electricity generation, industry, agriculture and heating your house. About one third of the transportation total comes from cars (to be fair, that's the biggest single part of transportation), with the rest coming from buses, trucks, rail, ships and aircraft.

That makes about 7% of human carbon dioxide emissions originating from the passenger car.

Around 75% of HC and CO emissions come from diesel lorries...

Government must ensure a racetrack open to the public and easily accessible to highly populated areas. For example: Acquire one in the California bay area and one in Southern California to serve the whole state.

For "government" to acquire and run a race track it needs to find the money to buy and maintain it. That means taxation. Where will that tax come from? Well, it'd be extremely unfair to tax everyone, whether they own a car or not. So maybe just car owners? But then who'd want to pay tax on their responsible electric cars for gas-burning dinosaurs to go have fun? So just the people who own the petrol-powered cars then... but there won't be that many - not very many people buy cars they can only use on track right now - so the tax would have to be massive, pricing people out of owning these cars and pricing the public ownership of race tracks out of the window.

Please take the Nurburgring in Germany as an example for how to run a publicly open racetrack.

Didn't that go bankrupt recently, necessitating a private take over?

Why yes, yes it did. So let's look at that as an example of how not to run a publicly open racetrack.