Related:

Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to California Tailpipe Emissions Limits

The justices agreed to decide whether industry groups have suffered the sort of injury that gave them standing to sue over an unusual waiver.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      That’s a pretty major thing and I don’t think the state should be able to ban people from buying a gas vehicle.

      It’s also a less good idea than people want to believe. Current gen batteries are still too heavy and eat through tires and other car parts too quickly. Plus the batteries need replaced after about 15 years and they’re still way too expensive to replace.

      • Stern@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Tenth amendment is fairly clear on that one, one would think-

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        Unless I missed something about cars in the constitution, of course. Interstate travel falls under the purview of the fed, but requiring gas cars for it doesn’t really hold weight. I suppose we could look at the transition from horse to car and see how that played out legally though.

  • Corigan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I’m sure the party of states rights will take issue with it in a few months…

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      It’s not really a state rights thing though: my state is not allowed to do something like that on its own

      This is a federal thing that there’s a specific exception for California and the rest of us can only follow them or stick to federal standards

      Articles keep linking this back to the clean air act but I don’t remember reading where the exception is. If it’s in the clean air act, I don’t see how Trump can change that: it has to be Congress. If it’s an EPA regulation or executive exception, that’s another story, but hopefully would at least be time consuming

  • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Eat shit, other states. We’re dissuading ICE because it’s polluting Los Angeles. If your state doesn’t buy enough ICE to make it worthwhile that’s a “you” problem.

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    As I recall from past reading, California was just going to prohibit sale of new non-EVs in California. If you want an ICE or hybrid vehicle, you can just buy it from an out-of-state dealer, even after 2035.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      California has a long history of barring registration of vehicles which do not meet its pollution standards. You’d need to not just buy out of states but fraudulently register it as if you resided in another state. Billionaires do this with eigth homes for their personal race cars, but basically nobody else does.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        goes to look

        Ah, apparently it only is permitted if a vehicle has at least 7500 miles on it. So can’t do it with a new vehicle.