This is stupid and will never actually happen. More generally, I'm growing tired of how signaling is usurping rational behavior. People are so focused on "being bold" and generating a headline instead of "being smart" and managing things rationally.
There is lots of uncertainty and perspectives around that. What if someone in the next 14 years comes up with a way to make gasoline from clean, low-carbon energy?
These kind of technology specific laws really bug me. What they should rationally legislate is lifecycle emissions. If the vehicle system (or energy system) makes more than x gCO₂-eq/mile then it's banned. How you get there shouldn't be specified 15 years in advance.
People who don't do this don't get elected and are removed from the system. Whether their legislation is effective or not matters only as far as it will affect their chances of reelection.
And that will not happen as long as people believe that anyone who disagrees with them or behaves suboptimally just isn't thinking rationally.
In what way is retiring gas-powered vehicles by 2035 not "rational behavior"? Climate change is very real and the deadline is 14 years from now. If anything you could argue that this law isn't rational enough because it doesn't take quick enough action.
Only considering the upside, instead of the downsides. True, an EV itself has no emissions but, how is that electricity generated, distributed? How are the materials for the batteries sourced (I hope you like strip mining and being beholden to China)? How are end-of-lifed batteries disposed?
I think EVs are the future, but we shouldn't put the cart before the horse on our way to get there. EVs are also already quite a bit more expensive a similar ICE vehicle. They'll only get more expensive if there's a government induced shortage of materials & parts due to a mandate.
0. The original sin of the car is the car itself, not the ICE. The car has externalities other than the ICE, battery cars don't address than and encourage forgetfulness. Arguably the car should be gradually killed off (I say this as a massive car guy) [1]
1. The problem with ICE cars is global warming, which is necessarily a global problem, not a local one (i.e. CO2 emissions barely effect the people who emit them more than those who do not). Therefore to address the CO2 emissions it has to be a global solution.
2. It's not obvious that battery technology can, globally, supply several orders of magnitude more batteries than currently.
3. Electrification of transport has immense promise, if done correctly. Assuming limited battery supplies, it is much more beneficial to use them to electrify big heavy vehicles by employing hybrid drivetrains.
I was very skeptical of the Toyota Prius 20 years ago, and I was wrong. It is a brilliant car that has done more good for the environment than any other car. My only criticism today of the Prius is that the Prius should have been a pickup truck, not a subcompact. However, I understand the marketing wisdom behind that decision 20 years ago.
4. With a hybrid drive trains ICE can achieve thermal efficiencies rivaling a thermal power plant (the vast majority of our energy in the US) -> See Mercedes F1 ICE.
5. With a hybrid drivetrain the stop-go energy loss of heavy delivery trucks is significantly reduced.
6. Nor is there any reason why heavy delivery trucks should run on gasoline or diesel and not CH4 like our powerplants. It's an infrastructure problem just like the one faced by electric cars.
So given the points above, if I were advising legislators, I would
- put massive incentives for blue collar joe to buy a hybrid F-150, or a Ford maverick as his next work vehicle (necessary condition for the incentive, it's used for work).
- put incentives to divert batteries to heavy road vehicles (although not necessarily big rigs. They have a more constant load).
That said, it's not obvious to me that:
1. NY's goal can be accomplished by 2035.
2. vehicle manufacturers wont just divert electric vehicles to CA, NY and Norway and only sell ICE everywhere else
3. It's economically possible within the time frame
[1]I don't zero-index. I use it here in the sense of the zeroth-law of thermo; as a prelude that to some is obvious, but turns out to be quite subtle.
There’s no reason to believe that EV cars will be worse than ICEs in any way in 10-15 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic... (Places with planned fossil-fuel vehicle bans)