France to ban fuel-powered cars by 2040?

I am uncomfortable with unilateral statements regarding the value of regulation. Regulations in and of themselves are neither good nor bad.

Regulation's effectiveness is directly related to its enforcement, and societal acceptance.

I think there is little to no valid comparison between regulations in the US and regulations in France, and there is even less similarities of regulation in places like Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, etc.

Some regulations achieve their objectives well, some do not. Some places are better at enforcing their regulations than others.

Some regulations are punitive, some are incentivized. Some work better than others.

Carbon trading, for example, commoditizes emissions and creates a market incentive to participate. It is not reliant on the powerful hand of the government to utilize punitive methods. Yet, it is a tool that government can manipulate to meet goals.

I am also really uncomfortable with the "Them vs Us" attitude regarding industry and regulation.

A large percentage of industry LOVES regulation. It creates barriers for entry to their competitors.

I have worked for several companies who vocalized opposition to increased regulation publically, while lobbying in support of the regulation behind closed doors, because they knew they could position themselves for market success against their competitors.

For example, I worked with a company developing extraction processes for flavorings for the tobacco industry. The particular manufacturer I was working for (one of the largest in the industry) now has technologies that will give them an enormous marketplace advantage if certain regulations are enacted. This large company is very pro-active in supporting the regulations, but only behind closed doors.

Assuming industry is on one side and government is the other is foolish.

Industry is not the enemy of regulation.

Car example...

Tesla makes huge profits selling pollution credits to it's competitors. If it wasn't for the regulations regarding pollution credits, Tesla would not have posted profits at times when they did.

Regulations encourage certain behaviors. Some manufacturers position themselves to benefit from regulations, and some do not.

SVreX wrote: I think there is little to no valid comparison between regulations in the US and regulations in France, and there is even less similarities of regulation in places like Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, etc.

I'm not sure why you would come up with that conclusion.

The regulations cover the same things. So given the rules- it's pretty easy to make a comparison between the various regulations around the world.

It's also easy to see the general effects on the local environment, given that every US city has shown an improvement in air quality, whereas most European cities have shown a degradation in the same.

Funny you bring up China as a less of a comparison, when they are now using EURO V and VI as their standards.

It's quite easy to make comparisons.

Interesting that you bring up regulations as barriers. I'm not sure of another global industry that has as many major players as part of it. Even tobacco doesn't have as many major manufacturers anymore, as far as I know.

In reply to alfadriver:

Regulation is easy to compare. Effectiveness is more difficult.

You are specifically referencing emmissions (and I agree with you). I am commenting on the generalizations about "more" or "less" regulatory involvement being "good" or "bad".

The answer is... it depends.

Things have gotten a lot better, sure. But I personally think a gas tax will drive fuel efficiency better.

I definitely think an increase in the federal gas tax is needed. I'm skeptical of making it an outright sin tax for the reasons Knurled mentioned. Regardless of any efforts to influence the buying habits of the american public, our road system has been perennially underfunded and we have already successfully Grover Norquist-ed large parts of our road infrastructure to solidly 3rd-world status. It would be nice to see a turnaround and I'm personally quite willing to pay for it in the form of a substantially higher federal (and state!) gas tax.

GameboyRMH wrote: 2040? That's more like closing the door behind internal combustion vehicles. Very few people will be DD'ing anything with an ICE by then.

It does seem far away but then I remember that Forrest Gump came out 23 years ago and that doesn't seem like that old of a movie. I wonder how the move to electrics will affect the car enthusiast. I think electric cars are cool but I don't want anybody to force me to drive one. I still enjoy driving my old Suburban and old Beetle every week.

Regulation definitely got the ball rolling in the 70's, no doubt. Cars were dirty and inefficient. The cars produced by the first rounds of regulation were simply horrible- but the air got cleaner. Slowly, automakers figured out how to meet emissions requirements and bring the power back. That didn't always translate into more MPG's, largely because cars got bigger, heavier, more nicely appointed, and safer. Side note- while safety is definitely mandated, it is also largely market driven. Many safety innovations come from auto makers not because they are initially mandated. Once the technology is proven, it becomes mandated, quite the opposite of the initial topic of the EV only mandate. A safety analogy to the original topic would be if France declared the people were not allowed to die in car crashes after 2040. Back on topic. While regulation can be good, that doesn't always mean that it is. Even if well intentioned, results don't always justify the cost. My worry is that once the point of diminishing returns is hit, regulators will keep pushing farther, partly to justify their own existence. Let's say that there is a huge leap in battery technology- a magical unicorn fart battery if you will- and the market swings 100% to EV due completely to consumer demand. Do you think CARB will say, "Our work is done here" and close up shop? Or will they just shift their attention to the unicorn farms, and all of the unregulated flatulence?

On cap and trade- very difficult to discuss without getting political- so I'll just say that I'm suspicious of the merit of a system that adds a layer of beaurocracy and transfers wealth and resources.

In reply to Vigo:

Things have gotten a lot better, sure. But I personally think a gas tax will drive fuel efficiency better. I definitely think an increase in the federal gas tax is needed. I'm skeptical of making it an outright sin tax for the reasons Knurled mentioned. Regardless of any efforts to influence the buying habits of the american public, our road system has been perennially underfunded and we have already successfully Grover Norquist-ed large parts of our road infrastructure to solidly 3rd-world status. It would be nice to see a turnaround and I'm personally quite willing to pay for it in the form of a substantially higher federal (and state!) gas tax.

I doubt increases gas taxes will do much for the roads, it sure doesn't here in CA. I'd like to see money currently allocated to the roads actually be spent on them, and with at least a little bit of cost control. Until then, it would be just throwing good money after bad.

If it's to punish people for making choices that you don't agree with, that could work. So we raise taxes until most people can no longer afford to drive the vehicles that they want- because that is what it would take to change the market, just like much of Europe.

In reply to Boost_Crazy:

I think its a sad commentary on our society that, as you rightly point out, gas taxes seem to have little to do with the quality of the roads. In essence, we don't trust the government to use the money to actually fix roads.

Also, if you look at data on road construction costs, you'll see that the price of major infrastructure projects has far, far outpaced the rate of inflation. So, we get less bang for our buck nowadays. Partly this is due to better technology, and more environmental studies and stuff that need to be done on major construction projects...but mostly, its just due to waste.

Nearly everyone I've ever asked about higher gas taxes has had pretty much the same thoughts- they'd be willing to pay higher gas taxes, IF they were sure the money would actually be used to fix roads and bridges. But most of them are highly distrustful that it would.

Boost_Crazy wrote: Even if well intentioned, results don't always justify the cost. My worry is that once the point of diminishing returns is hit, regulators will keep pushing farther, partly to justify their own existence. Let's say that there is a huge leap in battery technology- a magical unicorn fart battery if you will- and the market swings 100% to EV due completely to consumer demand. Do you think CARB will say, "Our work is done here" and close up shop? Or will they just shift their attention to the unicorn farms, and all of the unregulated flatulence?

If people are still having health effects due to man made pollution problems, shouldn't there still be work to do?

One needs to step back, and understand the original intentions of CARB and the EPA- it was to reduce the health effects of man made pollution- do both humans and the environment we live in.

EV's are not going to stop that. It just changes the focus from one source to another.

Boost_Crazy wrote: If it's to punish people for making choices that you don't agree with, that could work. So we raise taxes until most people can no longer afford to drive the vehicles that they want- because that is what it would take to change the market, just like much of Europe.

You call it punishing people, others will look at it as a reduction in a pollution source.

Comes back to what right is more important- your ability to have fun or the ability for others to not suffer health effects of that fun.

I'm not advocating one side or the other, just pointing out what many on the other side think.

SVreX wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Regulation is easy to compare. Effectiveness is more difficult. You are specifically referencing emmissions (and I agree with you). I am commenting on the generalizations about "more" or "less" regulatory involvement being "good" or "bad". The answer is... it depends.

???

Effectiveness is also easy to measure. Stick a tool out in air and measure the gasses that we know harm health of anything. Has the numbers gone up or down?

Given that one of the things the emissions laws are to be regulating is smog- which is quite visible- you can see the effects pretty handily, too.

It's not as if we don't know the health effects of NOx, HC, and CO.

China is well aware of those effects, which is why they are phasing in regulations at a pretty fast pace right now. Not that alarming of a pace, as they fall in line with the EU's numbers and more of a US methodology- so the solutions are generally well known.

alfadriver wrote: You call it punishing people, others will look at it as a reduction in a pollution source. Comes back to what right is more important- your ability to have fun or the ability for others to not suffer health effects of that fun. I'm not advocating one side or the other, just pointing out what many on the other side think.

Something else to keep in mind regarding fun. It's not like any of us here ONLY do motorsports for fun. We have sailors, bike riders, hikers, sailplane pilots, the list goes on and on and all of those things require fresh clean air to be fully enjoyed.

It's not as if fun cars are going to disappear, far from it as the original tesla Proved, it's just their method of locomotion that will change.

volvoclearinghouse wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote:

volvoclearinghouse wrote: I'll take your bet. You say: 2027- 1/2 of new car sales (by volume) will be something other than ICE. I'll bet you they won't be. What should the wager be? How about a tank of gas (or charge of electrons) for the winner's car?

I'd wager a charge for the EV of the future, or a tank of gas for today's average car, adjusted for inflation...who knows what gas could cost 10 years from now!

It's a bet. I don't know your name, or where you live, but I'm good for my word...and I expect you are to. In 10 years I'm gonna hunt you down...either to get my payment, or to pay up on my end.

mad_machine wrote:

alfadriver wrote: You call it punishing people, others will look at it as a reduction in a pollution source. Comes back to what right is more important- your ability to have fun or the ability for others to not suffer health effects of that fun. I'm not advocating one side or the other, just pointing out what many on the other side think.

Something else to keep in mind regarding fun. It's not like any of us here ONLY do motorsports for fun. We have sailors, bike riders, hikers, sailplane pilots, the list goes on and on and all of those things require fresh clean air to be fully enjoyed. It's not as if fun cars are going to disappear, far from it as the original tesla Proved, it's just their method of locomotion that will change.

That's my take on the entire thing. Hell companies like Unplugged Performance already exist, they're even talking about ways to dissipate the heat from the electric motors so the Model S can survive more than 2 laps at Buttonwillow and already have big brake kits that still allow regenerative charging.

The future is interesting and we'll be seeing the bleeding edge of new performance development on a wholly new platform, not just a generational leap.

Our hobby may change, but the electric future doesn't look completely terrible to me: https://www.youtube.com/embed/c4MRydmz86E

alfadriver wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Regulation is easy to compare. Effectiveness is more difficult. You are specifically referencing emmissions (and I agree with you). I am commenting on the generalizations about "more" or "less" regulatory involvement being "good" or "bad". The answer is... it depends.

??? Effectiveness is also easy to measure. Stick a tool out in air and measure the gasses that we know harm health of anything. Has the numbers gone up or down? Given that one of the things the emissions laws are to be regulating is smog- which is quite visible- you can see the effects pretty handily, too. It's not as if we don't know the health effects of NOx, HC, and CO. China is well aware of those effects, which is why they are phasing in regulations at a pretty fast pace right now. Not that alarming of a pace, as they fall in line with the EU's numbers and more of a US methodology- so the solutions are generally well known.

Remember when some magazine tested a Fiat 500 versus a Ford Raptor for emissions? The funny thing is that the Raptor made cleaner air than it took it.

Of course that's likely to be impossible, it's just that the Raptor was very good at eliminating the specific pollutants which we are interested in measuring. What about the other ones?

So the point is it sure is easy to write a rulebook and follow it, but SVReX is, I think, pointing out that it really depends on who is writing the rulebook, and why. You can enact huge change, positive or negative, just by being author of the rules.

Relevant:

1988RedT2 wrote: Relevant:

Read some WW1 history. They may be strange birds to us now, but the French were once total badasses.

tuna55 wrote: Remember when some magazine tested a Fiat 500 versus a Ford Raptor for emissions? The funny thing is that the Raptor made cleaner air than it took it. Of course that's likely to be impossible, it's just that the Raptor was very good at eliminating the specific pollutants which we are interested in measuring. What about the other ones? So the point is it sure is easy to write a rulebook and follow it, but SVReX is, I think, pointing out that it really depends on who is writing the rulebook, and why. You can enact huge change, positive or negative, just by being author of the rules.

Actually, I would not be surprised that the Raptor is a cleaner vehicle than the 500. The only gas that it would make a lot more of is CO2, other than that, it would not be that shocking that it would be producing less HC, NOx, and CO than a 500. And it could be producing little enough to be less than the background. It depends on the background.

I do get that the writer and the intention of the rule matters- but in this case, France is telling us that part of the reason is for health related air quality reasons. Reasons CARB and the EPA have existed for almost 50 years. And when the EU emissions standards came out, the reason was for air quality reasons- regulating the same gasses that are done here in the US.

The rules cover the same gasses, for the same goals. So, to me, it's a pretty easy thing to compare the two- both in the requirement and in the results. China's new rules are very much the same- again, it's easy to compare them.

That's my point.

The later EU rules were twisted to meet different goals- which changed their actual outcome without anyone knowing it. The end result was that diesels were heavily favored, including to the point that many old cars were brought back on the road- and none of them had any devices on them. And the end result may have reduced CO2, but in sharply increased HC, NOx, and CO (and PM) which harmed health. Knowing those rules, and seeing their effectiveness (or lack thereof), the comparison between the Raptor and the 500 makes a lot more sense.

One can also clearly see that China is VERY serious about cleaning their air. VERY VERY serious. It will take a while to see the effects- much like the 20 year time span that I've been able to travel to Europe. But I suspect that the car rules will help things quite a bit.

Vigo wrote:

Things have gotten a lot better, sure. But I personally think a gas tax will drive fuel efficiency better.

I definitely think an increase in the federal gas tax is needed. I'm skeptical of making it an outright sin tax for the reasons Knurled mentioned. Regardless of any efforts to influence the buying habits of the american public, our road system has been perennially underfunded and we have already successfully Grover Norquist-ed large parts of our road infrastructure to solidly 3rd-world status. It would be nice to see a turnaround and I'm personally quite willing to pay for it in the form of a substantially higher federal (and state!) gas tax.

Here's the problem with that, who is to say that the money will go where you want it to go? I mean, just look at what happened to the Social Security fund.

In reply to alfadriver:

Right, so the point I am adding here is that EU tried very hard to have strict air quality controls, and while trying to do that, they made everything worse by prioritizing the wrong thing and getting PM as a result, in this specific instance. This fortifies my distrust of the ability and/or willingness of the body to operate in a way which truly benefits the citizen of the respective country.

tuna55 wrote: Read some WW1 history. They may be strange birds to us now, but the French were once total badasses.

Indeed, and if it weren't for the French, American Independence might not be a thing. In fact, we celebrated Independence Day with French Toast for breakfast.

The Frech also gave us the Statue of Liberty. It's a little known fact that the original model had her smoking a cigarette on a stick, but that was taken out of the final design.

Still, LOL @ "Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys".

alfadriver wrote: One can also clearly see that China is VERY serious about cleaning their air. VERY VERY serious. It will take a while to see the effects- much like the 20 year time span that I've been able to travel to Europe. But I suspect that the car rules will help things quite a bit.

Respectfully, the only thing I've noticed about China is that they seem to be very serious about China. While I don't doubt that they are attempting to make big strides towards "greening" themselves, it seems somewhat suspicious that they stand to profit substantially from a good bit of "green" initiative. Not to say that profit is a bad thing, certainly, but one wonders if these efforts' real intentions may be clouding their results.

I guess, like you said, stick a probe in the air in 20 years, compare it to today's probe, and we'll find out.

Great. Now I'm thinking about Probes.