[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by Caymus

Phase out = eventual ban. Why would I ever trust the side that is pushing or defending it?

Exactly. California is the most populous state in the country for some unimaginable reason (NM, nice weather) so them "phasing out" ICE cars is just the start of it.

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Exactly. California is the most populous state in the country for some unimaginable reason (NM, nice weather) so them "phasing out" ICE cars is just the start of it.

And it forces costs to rise. Just like they did when the over regulated eggs and pork products.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by roscoguy

Oh, so states are enacting laws to protect their own environment and air quality, etc? Hardly what most people would call a 'government ban'. I thought that states' rights was a pretty big deal around here. Maybe not when it comes down to actually governing?

State governments are not "Governments"? On what planet?

A state government ban is most certainly a "government ban"...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by roscoguy

Oh, I bothered, thank you. This implied government ban simply doesn't exist. Regulations in a half dozen or so states designed to phase out ICE vehicles over the course of a decade or more just isn't a government ban. Think up a new scary term.

See my previous post... Sorry, but you're wrong...

Oh, and the phase in starts in 2026, with a 35% requirement...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Exactly. California is the most populous state in the country for some unimaginable reason (NM, nice weather) so them "phasing out" ICE cars is just the start of it.

And once CA does it, many states follow, in lock step...

[roscoguy]

Originally Posted by Caymus

Phase out = eventual ban. Why would I ever trust the side that is pushing or defending it?

Not really equal. At least as far as I've seen, California is only phasing out sales of NEW ICE cars by 2035 and several other states may follow their lead. This could change or even effectively become a ban over time, but the 'government ban' implied in the post I was responding to just isn't a thing.
I don't exactly understand your question about trust, so I really can't answer that.

[roscoguy]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Exactly. California is the most populous state in the country for some unimaginable reason (NM, nice weather) so them "phasing out" ICE cars is just the start of it.

Could be and very possibly should be.

[roscoguy]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

State governments are not "Governments"? On what planet?

A state government ban is most certainly a "government ban"...

Do you really think of CA when someone talks about a "government" ban with no mention of which government? I'm not going to argue semantics; the post I replied to sure seemed to imply something bigger than the California regulations.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by roscoguy

Not really equal. At least as far as I've seen, California is only phasing out sales of NEW ICE cars by 2035 and several other states may follow their lead. This could change or even effectively become a ban over time, but the 'government ban' implied in the post I was responding to just isn't a thing.
I don't exactly understand your question about trust, so I really can't answer that.

A "ban" on new car sales isn't a ban? Interesting take you have there... (Changing the wording to "phasing out" doesn't change what they are doing)

Oh, and it's also a BAN on the sale or transfer of USED ICE vehicles...

But, I guess you're right... The ban really isn't a ban...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by roscoguy

Do you really think of CA when someone talks about a "government" ban with no mention of which government? I'm not going to argue semantics; the post I replied to sure seemed to imply something bigger than the California regulations.

All you're doing is "arguing semantics"...

[roscoguy]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

See my previous post... Sorry, but you're wrong...

Oh, and the phase in starts in 2026, with a 35% requirement...

Originally Posted by JMintzer

And once CA does it, many states follow, in lock step...

Wrong about what??? Now I am confused: is it a phase in or a phase out? Either way, it still falls short of a literal "ban".

Other states could follow CA's lead, but "lock step"??? Could just be that other state leaders (OK, governments ) see the reasons behind the regulations and decide for themselves that it makes sense.