The inevitable usually happens – and so it has come to pass (literally) in the state of Washington, where a bill has just been passed that outlaws the sale of non-electric new cars beginning with the 2030 model year. This is five years sooner than the similar ban that was passed in California back in 2020 that bans the sale of other-than-electric new cars beginning in 2035.
It will result – inevitably – in several things.
The first thing being the ramped-up disappearing of other-than-electric cars years before 2030. Whatever’s still available now is likely to be all that’s available, going forward – because it takes several years to bring a new car design from the blackboard (well, computer screen) to the production line. Why expend the effort – and the money – designing a new-design non-electric car for the 2027 model year, say, that you know ahead of time you’ll only be permitted to sell for three years in at least one major non-market?
To be followed shortly thereafter by the biggest non-market in the country, i.e., the People’s Republic of California?
Each year that passes brings us one year closer to the dates after which making other-than-electric cars amounts to the same as keeping a popular Chinese buffet stocked with fresh hot food that no one’s allowed to buy, as during the forced closing of sit-down restaurants during the “pandemic.”
It also brings us that much closer to another inevitability – the banning of older cars that aren’t electric cars in places like Washington and California.
Some people have difficulty seeing this inevitability. They are the same people who didn’t see that “masks” would inevitably lead to Jabs. They are conceptually myopic. All they see is what’s right in front of them. They do not understand what will be in front of them, inevitably – having accepted the thing placed in front of them right now.
It’s just a “mask,” some of them said.
Some of us said that by wearing the “mask” they have accepted the reason put forward for wearing it and if that is accepted they have already accepted that Jabs must be accepted, too.
Conceptually myopic people have difficulty with such things, even when they are explained to them.
Well, let’s try to explain it to them – again.
States that have banned the sale of new cars that aren’t electric cars will inevitably ban those that are not from being used. In the first place for reasons of practical necessity. So long as it is possible to avoid the high cost and hassles of owning an electric car by not buying one, many people will not buy electric cars.
It will not be just a few people, either, as millions of people cannot afford to spend the $30k-plus it takes to buy even an entry-level electric car. These people will – what’s the word? – cling to their older, non-electric cars and this will be treated by the government much the same as the farmer was treated by the government (Wickard v. Filburn) back in the era of the New Deal, when he had the audacity to grow wheat on his own land for his own use. This was held by the government’s court to “affect interstate commerce,” since the farmer wasn’t obliged to buy the wheat grown by someone else, somewhere else – thus reducing “demand” for it.
Do you see?’
It will be said that people who continue to drive their pre-2030 (and pre-2035) non-electrics are “reducing demand” for electric cars. Which is true in the same way that a popular Chinese buffet that people go to in preference over the place across the street that sells soy burgers people aren’t lining up for “reduces demand” for them, too.
So the governments of Washington and CA will say, at any rate.
They will also say the same thing that made this EV push-down-our-throats inevitable in the first place, which is that older non-electric cars must be banned for the same reason that EVs are being mandated.
The “climate” is “changing.”
For the benefit of the conceptually myopic:
If one accepts the premise that electric cars must be mandated because non-electric cars are causing the “climate” to “change” alarmingly, then one has already accepted that nothing except electric cars is permissible, whether new or old. There will not be any grandfathering of pre-2030 cars that aren’t electric. There will be a growing chorus of noise calling for their banning years before then. It will not be long after then that this comes to pass.
For it must. It is an inevitability.
Motorcycles, too. Also inevitable – if it is accepted that any vehicle that isn’t electric causes the “climate” to “change.”
All made inevitable, incidentally, by Republicans – 52 years ago.
By one of them, specifically. Richard Milhous Nixon. He didn’t merely create the federal apparat that became the enforcer of “emissions” regimes at the national level; he legitimized the whole intellectual – scratch that, the emotional – underpinnings of the “environmental” movement that made all of this inevitable.
He enshrined in law – and in psychology – that Combustion Bad! no mater how good. It doesn’t matter that current combustion engines are nearly zero emissions cars. Only “zero” emissions will do – even if they aren’t, actually.
So long as they aren’t at the tailpipe.
And once the tailpipes have been eliminated, electric cars will be, too. For the same inevitable reason. Because they, too, cause the “climate” to “change” – or so it will be said, once all that’s left are electric cars.
It’s follows as inevitably as the wearing of “masks” led to Jabs. Perhaps the conceptually myopic will see it, at last.