Japan Announces it Will Phase Out Gasoline, What About the US?

Mish

The push is on for electric vehicles in Japan, California, and the EU.

Japan Joins the EV Push

All new vehicles in Japan must be hybrids or fully electric starting in mid-2030s and this has Toyota howling.

Japan said it planned to stop the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by the mid-2030s, bucking criticism by Toyota Motor Corp.’s chief that a rapid shift to electric vehicles could cripple the car industry.

Earlier this month, Toyota President Akio Toyoda said that if Japan banned gasoline-powered cars and moved to electric vehicles too hastily, “the current business model of the car industry is going to collapse.” 

Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga pointed to a different portion of Mr. Toyoda’s comments in which the Toyota chief said he backed the government’s goal of making Japan carbon-neutral by 2050. Reducing carbon emissions “should be tackled as a strategy for growth, not as a limitation on growth,” Mr. Suga said.

Japan’s move, combined with those in China, Europe and California, adds pressure on global auto makers to shift more quickly to electric vehicles, although for now many are getting their profits from U.S. consumers hungry for gasoline-powered trucks and sport-utility vehicles.

California to Ban Sales of New Gas-Powered Cars Starting in 2035

On September 23, California announced it would Ban Sales of New Gas-Powered Cars Starting in 2035

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an order Wednesday that aims to end the sale of new gasoline and diesel-powered passenger cars in the state by 2035.

It is an ambitious attempt to bolster electric vehicles in the largest car market in the U.S., as well as a bid to tackle emissions that most scientists say contribute to climate change. Transportation is responsible for more than half of carbon pollution in California, the governor said. 

More than 11% of all light vehicles in the U.S. last year were registered in California, according to IHS Markit. 

California is the first state in the nation to commit to such a goal, but could serve as a spark for other left-leaning states to follow, given its size and historic leadership on regulatory issues. Seventeen countries including France, the U.K. and Germany have adopted goals to phase out internal combustion passenger cars, according to the International Council on Clean Transportation, a nonprofit that supports decarbonizing fuels.

Biden's Climate Change Plan

President-elect Joe Biden want 500,000 new public charging outlets in a decade as part of his plan to combat climate change. 

The 500,000-unit pledge was part of Biden’s platform when he was running for the job but largely overlooked in a grinding campaign dominated by the pandemic. Now, the industry hopes he’ll stick with it. But it is a wildly ambitious strategy to overcome one of the biggest hurdles facing EVs: Would-be drivers fear they won’t have enough places to charge up. The infrastructure milestone would cover 57% of the charging that U.S. vehicles will need by 2030 and could spark the sale of some 25 million electric cars and trucks, according to forecasts by Bloomberg.

Right now, there are about 90,000 public charging plugs at 28,000 U.S. stations, according to the latest Energy Department tally. However, one in five of those is exclusive to Tesla; of the remainder, only one in 10 tops a car up quickly enough to be useful on a road trip. Most public charging options are still relatively slow—useful for drivers idling at work, for example, or grinding through a long grocery hunt.

Two big questions remain, however: How will the policy be structured, and will Biden’s administration be able to persuade Congress to pay for the plan?

Stumbling Block

Unless McConnell is willing to go along Biden's plan is dead. 

Assuming there is a deal, what would McConnell ask in return, or will McConnell suddenly turn green?

McConnell aside, does Biden's plan make any sense? 

Mish

Comments (103)
No. 1-27
PecuniaNonOlet
PecuniaNonOlet

If you park your combustion engine car in an enclosed garage and leave the motor running, what do you think will happen? The answer is you die of asphyxiation.

How and why people don't see the same thing happening to earth when there are millions of vehicles spewing CO2 into the atmosphere EVERY DAY along with coal plants, factories, petrochemical plants, refineries, gas flaring, etc. spewing CO2 into the atmosphere EVERY DAY is really beyond me.

Are we supposed to have 8 billion CO2 emitting cars on the road for every human being? At what point do we say, "hey that's too much f******g CO2 into the atmosphere?"

Evidently this is all a 'hoax' just like coronavirus right? The other thing I hear is "I gotta make a living" but making a living is irrelevant if you don't have air to breathe and you're dead. "The cost is too high" to go green is another nonsensical bullshit phrase. Look no further than Venus to see the end state. A dead world with nothing but CO2 and 800 degrees.

You want to know how bad it's getting? Look at the science. When is enough enough? I applaud California, Japan and EU for at least trying to do something about it because 8 billion self-centered selfish people really won't give a damn.

Felix_Mish
Felix_Mish

Any significant carry-through on the idea of "public" charging stations is a negative indicator for the prospect of electric vehicles.

TexasTim65
TexasTim65

I wonder what we will do with the excess Gasoline once we all change over to Electric Vehicles.

Charles High Smith had an excellent article on this a couple weeks back. Half of each barrel is only good for gasoline (can't be used for anything else). So will we just burn it off uselessly like we do when we flare natural gas after fracking? That would essentially mean zero carbon savings.

tedr
tedr

Dream on buddy. I'll believe it when it actually happens. The key word being 'actually'. I'm still waiting for all those self-driving heavy trucks to hit the highways. Where are they?

Realist
Realist

I don't see a need to mandate anything like phasing out gasoline at some specified date. That sounds too arbitrary and difficult to time correctly. If you want to reduce the use of something, just tax it more. Add more taxes to gasoline, or gasoline powered vehicles instead. Slowly add carbon taxes to all fossil fuels over time to prevent initial shock, and give everyone time to prepare by putting out a schedule for when the taxes increment.

Though, that is but a small step in the right direction.

Global warming is a worldwide problem which requires a worldwide solution. Since that involves cooperation between essentially all the worlds countries, I am not optimistic.

The problem will continue to get worse for many decades. Of course, any reasonable and low cost things we can do to slow down the rate of warming, will give us more time to come up with better solutions. At this point, science is our best hope to be able to reverse the damage we have caused, by developing inexpensive methods of removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer

While places clamor for "growth", nation-states like California, Europe and Japan will be better off with sustainable growth. Almost 8B is enough. The one lesson humans aren't going to learn from Covid is that the planet is saying it has had enough. There has been zero research done on it but what if Covid only kills because the planet got a little warmer ? That has been my theory. Covid won't be the last pandemic. I truly think we are entering the age where the planet will bend the population growth if we won't do it ourselves.

Sechel
Sechel

It will transform the economy, spur purchases and investment accelerating R&D. Electric cars are not an if but a when. Japan is being bold

Sechel
Sechel

Government can promote electric vehicles by pushing for charging stations. Maybe mandate gas stations offer both. If charging stations are readily available it's a game changer

Johnson1
Johnson1

This make sense for Japan and many nations that cannot produce their own oil. By going EV, you are not dependent upon the whims of the oil producing vompanies

Jojo
Jojo

I've said it before and I will repeat it - the future is hydrogen fuel cell.

Hydrogen Is a Trillion Dollar Bet on the Future
By David Fickling
December 1, 2020
A three-part series on hydrogen energy

The world is on the brink of what may turn out to be its most important energy experiment.

If proposals to build a new industry producing so-called green hydrogen succeed, we may have the final piece of the puzzle to prevent devastating climate change. If they fail, we may be about to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a white elephant.

That’s why there’s both excitement and trepidation around the run of dramatic hydrogen announcements from Europe, Australia and Chile in recent months. The European Union alone envisages spending as much as 470 billion euros ($558 billion) on green hydrogen by 2050. To shift the whole world in the same direction would cost at least twice as much.
...

BDR45
BDR45

These mandates are another example of governments thinking they can outsmart the market. Pretty soon EV's attributes will outweigh ICE attributes and the change to EV's will commence at a more rapid pace. Exactly why do we need another "daddy" to protect us from our own decisions?

FromBrussels
FromBrussels

ONE question remaining : what are the charging stations gonna be charged with? Eco wind and solar is pure eco hypocrisy , there s NOTHING eco about it, batteries are awfully dirty and unreliable, socialist eco fools think (or want the plebs to think) that something like a free eco lunch, on a 8 bln human destructive predators planet, really exists.... eco DELUSION at its best !

ColoradoAccountant
ColoradoAccountant

Just to take the other side, the plants and me would like a little warmer world with a little more CO2.

Eddie_T
Eddie_T

A few bullet points.

Electric vehicles won’t completely eliminate emissions. However, most estimates show that eliminating gasoline can lower the overall climate impact of driving by something like 40%, which is a worthwhile goal.

The biggest fossil fuel input for electric cars is the amount of electricity it takes to produce the lithium batteries they all currently run on. However, it’s good to remember that’s not the only one. It takes 7 gallons of oil to make a single tire for a car.

People are already driving less than they used to...and that’s a trend that will probably continue. It makes better sense for people to live close to work and not commute 50 or 100 miles a day for work....and there is no real reason that can’t happen. Solutions like public transit infrastructure and working from home could potentially matter just as much as electric cars, as far as reducing carbon.

But it's hard to herd people into a new way of living. Taxing gas more is probably one stick TBTB can use..and that works.

About 10% of carbon emissions comes from agriculture. I doubt we see that all go away. anytime soon....

In general, I see a lot of poorly thought through initiatives being incentivized because they will benefit some insiders and elites....by driving new industries and technology. It remains to be seen how much real difference these government mandates will make.

But so far we’re on track to push the planet past certain tipping points that will definitely result (at some point) in runaway warming that can’t be reversed.....and in fact we might have passed some of them already. Climate experts agree certain such tipping points exist....but the truth is that we don’t have a precise understanding of how far along we are.

njbr
njbr

This discussion is a fine example of "crabs in a barrel" in action.

WTF difference does it make to you if Japan is tryng to push things in a different direction?

How does the propulsion system of your "go fast" machine make a difference to you?

Is plugging in your vehicle an onerous over-ride of your abiiity to decide your fate?

Is the fte of Exxon that important?

threeblindmice
threeblindmice

"8 billion self-centered selfish people really won't give a damn." Yes, we need the really smart, caring people to tell all the awful people their choices are no good. Imagine what we could accomplish if the right people could make all the right decisions for the rest of us!

Stan877
Stan877

So how does California make up for all the lost revenue from motor fuel taxes?

Carl_R
Carl_R

Mandates are a stupid way to get where you are going precisely because some bureaucrat (or lobbyist) has to decide what the future is. Incentivizing individual solutions is just as bad, for the exact same reason. For example, someone decided corn ethanol should be the future, and we keep pouring money into this dead end.

Meanwhile, there is a much more sure way to get to an efficient solution. Follow the rule "Tax what you want less of", and then stay out of the way, and let the free market sort out the best of the alternatives.

Stan877
Stan877

Nat gas conversions are a cheaper way to lower emissions

Sechel
Sechel

Not only should the u.s. announce an ambitious goal it can do a great deal to make that achievable such as requiring gasoline stations to also support electric charge stations, make modernizing the electric grid a priority , raise epa gas mileage standards or consider a new gas tax. we're going electric. sure we can cling to the past like horse carriage makers did but this just puts out domestic industry at a disadvantage. creative destruction will make u.s. industry stronger. schumpeter was right.

Jackula
Jackula

I know several sales guys who drive Tesla's because of the large fuel cost savings here in LA.

Dodge Demon
Dodge Demon

Simply ban CO2. Problem solved!

Jojo
Jojo

Hey Realist, you never did tell us if you and this guy are one and the same person?

Realist Comments
8,171 Comments • 296,500 Words

gstegen
gstegen

I agree with goals of reducing fossil fuel burning and reducing pollution, and have been in favor since long before the global warming issue came to the surface. However, I think that market incentives/disincentives to speed a transition are usually more beneficial than mandates like Californias. To free market idealogues who cry "the government should not be picking winners and losers, let the market do it," I say: great, lets load the full cost of downwind impacts onto the pollution emitters, e.g. health care costs, lower life expectancy, property damage, degraded quality of life, etc.; then let the free market decide. As a moderate conservative who voted against the demagogue in the white house I do hope that Biden embraces largely market based incentives to speed his desired green transition.

Tezza
Tezza

Let the free market work it out.

Herkie
Herkie

"Unless McConnell is willing to go along Biden's plan is dead."

Mish, so you have already decided the runoff election in Georgia is going to the GOP?

There is a lot to speculate about with a Biden presidency, energy policy is just one area we could discuss, but whether or not any of them can get done depends upon both Warnock and Ossoff winning.

For example, healthcare policy, if the GOP fold in GA and we end up with Harris breaking all ties in the senate then cigarettes/tobacco will be banned for the poor and middle class.

No they will not tell you this because they know that very damned few smokers would vote for them if they so much as breathed the idea, but, they have done this very thing in Australia and are working on the same in the EU, a few years ago Australia passed a law setting confiscatory taxes on tobacco and a schedule that has the rises rise by 12.5% per year every year till there are no more smokers in the country.

Right now the price for a 4 pack (25 to the pack) carton of Marlboro red is AUS$186 so $372 for 200 cigarettes, equal to one US carton. Put it this way, that is $3.72 per cigarette. So a pack per day (20 cigs) smoker like me would have to pay close to $13,500 per year for smokes, going on $75 per DAY!

And nearly all is tax that goes to pay for their healthcare system. It is very popular with non smokers it goes without saying, but do you really want government having that level of power in your life?

They could charge several times as much and the wealthy would still be able to pay it, but it effectively bans it for most of the people based upon income alone. And I assure you this does a lot of corrosion and harm in social tranquility. Many people are so hooked they just keep buying smokes and live on the street.

Back to banning gasoline. This proposal is going to kill car sales because even though the goal date is still far off who is going to spend up to $100,000 on a vehicle that will be sculpture before it's usable live is up?

My BMW is older now and starting to have random issues that are extremely expensive, I bought a house and really need a truck so I thought trade the BMW in for a pickup. But the cheapest most basic utility pickups now are 27-38 thousand and they go very rapidly up from there. Need a back seat? Crew cabs start at $45k, how about 4 wheel drive? KaCHING! You are at about $55k now, I have been pricing trucks, unless you go totally stripped utility truck you are looking at 60-70 thousand and have seen several that are over $100,000.

But electrics will be close to double that. Their stripped down utility trucks start at that price point.

A lot will change and maybe most for the good, or at least for survival, but that doesn't mean we have to like it.


Global Economics

FEATURED
COMMUNITY