Planet-9 Porsche Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
It’s hard to not notice that recent government legislation across the world has developed an EV craze. England passed a law recently that said ALL new ICE cars are banned in 2035. Obviously each country has their own emissions laws, but I’m getting nervous that there might be a day when I can no longer hear the sound of a gasoline powered engine start up and make a rumble when I accelerate. How much time do you think we have as an American before we have to give up our hobby? I know that Trump is actually helping us petrol heads keep our cars, but the truth is that he can’t stay in office forever and likely when/if a Liberal leaning President is in office, there will he some sort of legislative order passed that bans ice cars. Without getting into politics, how much longer do we have before companies just stop making ice cars all together? Sad times for the car community...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
People no longer use horses for transportation, but have still found ways to enjoy them. Enthusiasts will adapt in the same way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
People no longer use horses for transportation, but have still found ways to enjoy them. Enthusiasts will adapt in the same way.
I do hope that this is the case with ICE cars however, people will deem ice cars as a “threat” and “danger” to society and thus be able to argue the extinction of ice. At least we can still drive old ice cars though
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,110 Posts
Short answer: longer than most people are predicting. Back in the '70s, car enthusiasts thought emissions regulations meant the end of performance cars; in fact it turned out to be the dark before the dawn.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,603 Posts
ICE cars is not the problem. It's those saying they are.
If you listened to the earlier pollical debates here in the US the world will end unless you elect the candidate with the most radical solution. The problem is industrial nations like China, India etal polluting the planet. While the US has about the best air (except LA) anywhere.
I heard statements this week on the radio that plug in electric cars are worst polluters than ICE cars. Don't know how they back that up. Haven't heard anyone explain it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,077 Posts
Heh ...

1. As to being perceived as "danger" - we already are, when driving. As everybody else is steering the car, driving looks like a darn stupid and dangerous thing to do :)

2. ICE cars will always be there, just like horses are being steered/driven even today. The problem is that, just like with horses, it will be relegated to isolated pastures (called racetracks) and a hobby for extremely wealthy people. No not-1-percenter need apply.

3. In United States it will very much depend on how the legislation goes. Euros might be drastic, but manufacturers like stability and long-term goals. Current nightmare of CARB yes - CARB no splitting big manufacturers in two camps is just the beginning. Maybe it would help to have a meaningful Constitution Amendment passed - it seems like the only way that something can stay relatively untouched by the fashion-of-the-moment. Frankly, I wouldn't bet more than $5 on what everybody else is saying - that ICE is safe here for a long time.

4. Not all Euros like the ICE-be-gone movement. :) This just in

www.grandprix247.com/2020/02/25/prost-petrol-ban-will-bring-formula-1-to-a-crossroads/amp/

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,994 Posts
if a Liberal leaning President is in office, there will he some sort of legislative order passed that bans ice cars.
it would help to have a meaningful Constitution Amendment passed - it seems like the only way that something can stay relatively untouched by the fashion-of-the-moment.
Amendments to alter the constitution are very unlikely. They can't even pass the ERA and that involves, by definition "rights". The first 10 represent the foundational rights of all citizens given by their creator limiting what the government can do. The Reconstruction amendments did much of the same for the people against state government. Many of the rest are about how the government is elected or the operations thereof (e.g. income tax,direct election of senators). And the rest are about rights again - voting rights, essentially all are about the rights of citizens. The mistake was prohibition, that is banning something, which was revoked. I hardly think the US will make the same mistake again after the mistake of Prohibition.

Regarding a liberal President banning something via legislation. I would not hold my breath. Presidents and those wishing to be President can promise whatever. That does not mean it happens. It would requires the majority in the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Even if one party gained control of the executive branch and both sides of Congress, it would be a monumental mistake to change the rules of the Senate to do away with the filibuster. What happened when they last did that? Now there are two new SCOTUS justices. Huge mistake. To do away with the filibuster for normal legislation would be an invitation to the tyranny of the majority, the very reason the filibuster exists today.

Does not anyone learn from history? Prohibition - banning something. You know how difficult it is to get an amendment passed and yet a second amendment was passed to reverse the first amendment. And then removing the filibuster for Judges. Two huge mistakes. Which leaves ... nothing will happen unless one party gains both the executive branch and a supermajority in the Senate. Except for a short time in the 70s, you'd have to go back to WWII through early 60s.

I would not hold my breath and not believe much of anything in the media. Empty rhetoric without the process to make it happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Amendments to alter the constitution are very unlikely.
Local governments do not need to amend the constitution in order to tread on it. If I were to bear my firearm on my hip in say....California, I would become a criminal per their local law and would be locked in jail although the constitution clearly states that I am legal to do so. Who is to say states will not infringe on other amendments?

California has been working on banning specific ICE vehicles already. Diesel trucks.

If you put a frog into boiling water it will jump out. If you put him in cold water and slowly heat it up he will boil to death.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,994 Posts
Local governments do not need to amend the constitution in order to tread on it. If I were to bear my firearm on my hip in say....California, I would become a criminal per their local law and would be locked in jail although the constitution clearly states that I am legal to do so. Who is to say states will not infringe on other amendments?

California has been working on banning specific ICE vehicles already. Diesel trucks.
I was responding to the concept that an amendment could be passed to the constitution of the USA to ban ICE. That's not going to happen with 99.9999% certainty. Every state sets its own traffic laws. CA has an exception to the Clean Air Act, which made sense in the early 70s because of their SMOG problem. Today, that exception is in the process of being revoked. Ultimately, SCOTUS will decide about that exemption. If CA decides its citizens can no longer buy ICE cars, then the citizens of CA voted for those politicians, they made their bed, and they will lie in it. But it does not effect the rest of the USA.

Regarding the 2nd amendment, yes its under attack, but that does not appear relevant to this discussion and is an entirely different discussion. There is no part of the Constitution that guarantees any type of automobile exist or not exist. So I don't see what point your making. There is no "right to drive a 8 cyl gas engine".

CA can do whatever if wants to do. Its citizens voted for them. They have to live with them and their local laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,077 Posts
Does not anyone learn from history? Prohibition - banning something.
Chow, just to clarify ... Considering current state of fiefdoms and not-in-my-backyard legislation ... I was suggesting an Amendment in order to define (not ban) a very long term prospect for this country's transportation. I frankly do not even care anymore how they will word it and what parameters they will use and to what end - as long as it provides long term stability and allows for proper planning.

The worst situation is the current one. Administration A puts in the mid-to-long term plan (20 years out) about how to manage emissions from transportation in this country. 4 years later, Administration B comes in and de facto if not de iure blows it up.

We are not talking whether school kids should drink 2% milk or whole milk and change that every 4 years - changing a strategic plan that massive is very costly to everybody, don't fool yourself. In current state of affairs, for all outside onlookers, all of this looks like a joke worse than the tequila guerilla governments a bit south from here from the swinging '70s.

And just think that, ultimately, I wish Administration B wins because I like ICE-powered cars for hobby. But I also understand that this situation is not sustainable nor is it good for mid to long term future of this country. THAT is why I proposed Amendment to Constitution - they are notoriously hard to overturn because of Zeitgeist whims.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top