Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsthe EnvironmentCaliforniaElectric VehiclesClean EnergyClimate PolicyAutomotive industryStates: California•••Started 4mos agoActive 15hrs ago

Should California ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035?

Under the 'Advanced Clean Cars II' regulation, California mandates that 100% of new cars sold must be zero-emission by 2035. As the largest auto market in the US, California effectively dictates manufacturing trends for the rest of the country. Proponents argue this is the only way to meet climate goals and reduce smog. Opponents argue electric cars are too expensive, charging takes too long, and the current electrical grid is too fragile to support the demand.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

County:

83 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

No

 @BF2ZQ2Q from California  agreed…1 day1D

Even in a leading EV market like California, progress has slowed:
EVs were about 25% of new car sales in 2024, and growth has recently flattened rather than accelerating
The state needs a rapid jump to near-100% of new sales within a decade, which critics argue is unrealistic given current trends
Argument: If adoption is already plateauing at ~1 in 4 cars, the jump to nearly all new cars being EVs is a major structural challenge, not just a policy tweak.
2. Infrastructure is widely viewed as a major bottleneck
Multiple analyses highlight charging as a limiting factor:
Large-scale EV adoptio…  Read more

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

Yes

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

No, let the free market decide, not heavy-handed government mandates.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

Yes, but only if the state heavily subsidizes the cost for low-income families.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

Yes, we must phase out fossil fuels immediately to combat the climate crisis.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...4mos4MO

No, our fragile power grid cannot handle millions of new electric cars.

 @BDVMWPJRepublican from California  answered…2wks2W

No, and banning internal combustion engines will destroy the economy

 @BDV924VGreen  from California  answered…2wks2W

Yes, but allow for the continued sale of hybrid cars with a gas option in case there is a problem with the technology and for areas that receive less sun which can prevent full solar capabilities.

 @BDTGL7L from California  answered…3wks3W

No. This ignores the issues in less populated rural areas who may have less access to the grid and where escaping situations such as wildfire may require immediate response and relying on an EV onlly puts people at risk

 @BDTBCP4 from California  answered…3wks3W

we should have hybrid cars because we should be putting more energy use towards electric but that is not sustainable, so yes but focus on hybrid

 @BDSNMRK from California  answered…3wks3W

No, but incentivize the deprecation of gas-powered cars

 @BDRZRF4 from California  answered…3wks3W

Yes, they should be phased out, but the date should be in alignment with the power grid’s ability to handle the increased need for electricity.

 @BDRWF73 from California  answered…3wks3W

Yes, but it depends on gas prices and if it's affordable

 @BDRH4J9Green from California  answered…3wks3W

No, Build a train that's worth riding instead of driving

 @psylocke112  from California  answered…4wks4W

No, not right now, but eventually. We need to fix energy costs and alternative energy creation first.

 @BDQBC28Peace and Freedom from California  answered…4wks4W

in depends the state we are in by 2035

 @B2QX97G  from California  answered…4wks4W

Not by 2035

 @BDPRFJ8No Labels from California  answered…4wks4W

Yes, but make electric car chargers more widely available across the state, and lower the prices of electric cars.

 @BDP4Y5G from California  answered…4wks4W

Yes, but the power grid should be strengthened to handle the increase in electric cars.

 @BDNYNPFDemocrat from California  answered…4wks4W

Only if sourced safely and can be disposed of

 @BDNY7ZS from California  answered…4wks4W

No, we should slowly phase out gas-powered cars to replace them with hybrid or electric in the future.

 @BDNFVM4 from California  answered…4wks4W

No, but encourage the usage of electric vehicles and slowly adapt to a more electric-friendly environment.

 @BDKBMRS from California  answered…1mo1MO

nah fam the new Camaros and mustangs got them v8s that sound insane

 @BDJ57XP from California  answered…1mo1MO

Yes, but electric cars would need to become affordable

 @BDH28DMNo Labels from California  answered…1mo1MO

Yes, only if it is established that the power grid is able to handle the electric cars, and we have the proper infrastructure. Electric cars must also be accessible and have a variety in price and market competition.

 @BDG3NQVSocialist from California  answered…1mo1MO

Yes, but only if public transportation can be expanded to be an adequate substitute for driving for most people.

 @BDFY7CCRepublican  from California  answered…1mo1MO

No

No not everybody has the ability to buy a Tesla.

 @BDFXVR4 from California  answered…1mo1MO

Yes if our energy infrastructure meets demand

 @BDF2ZN7No Labels from California  answered…1mo1MO

they shouldnt ban the sale but we shouldnt be forced to buy it

 @BDDMLRM from California  answered…1mo1MO

Yes, but only if alternatives to driving are more accessible (convenient and safe public transport)

 @BDDF9JJ from California  answered…1mo1MO

Yes if they make it affordable for low income.

 @BDD6WNK from California  answered…1mo1MO

Yes, and focus on expanding public transportation statewide to lessen car dependency

 @BDC6N9KPeace and Freedom from California  answered…1mo1MO

I would say yes but keep the old ones for collectors.

 @BDBV3ZZ from California  answered…1mo1MO

not everyone can afford electric cars and would ruin the economy.

 @BD9YDQ2 from California  answered…1mo1MO

Yes but only if it is state subsidized and only after we have heavily reformed and strengthened our current power grid.

 @BD8X6KMNo Labels from California  answered…1mo1MO

Hybrids instead, electric cars will strain the grid and Lithium-ion is also just as bad for the environment

 @Lisabrink86 from California  answered…2mos2MO

No, electric is too expensive to support this. First we need to get the cost of utilities down to a reasonable amount.

 @BD8C9ZKNo Labels from California  answered…2mos2MO

Not necessarily ban, but incentivize and lead the sector towards non-gas-powered cars so that we don't have to rely on gas powered cars

 @BD7W5DW from California  answered…2mos2MO

No, but they should provide incentives for energy and more environment friendly things

 @BD74RHR from California  answered…2mos2MO

Not by 2035 slower

 @BD73S63 from California  answered…2mos2MO

No, not until we've developed the infrastructure to maintain those new electric cars.

 @BD5PRMVDemocrat from California  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, but only if they build the charging infrastructure first.

 @BD266KFSocialist from California  answered…2mos2MO

encourage green cars

 @BCYFV5C  from California  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, only if proper infrastructure is in place by 2035 for alternative options.

 @BCXQHHR from California  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, if our power grid can handle that much and the government can help fund it

 @BCXMBVR from California  answered…2mos2MO

No, unless the government wants to give us a new car with a years paid off.

 @BCW9VQR  from California  answered…2mos2MO

No, but incentivize and encourage the purchase of clean-energy cars.

 @BCTTKLL  from California  answered…2mos2MO

prioritize atomic power before a decision on this can be made

 @BCT5YK5 from California  answered…2mos2MO

They should stop making new cars. But if they have already made it, they can buy the car.

 @BCSFKTD from California  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, we have to combat climate change, and the state needs to subsidize the cost for low income families.

 @BCS99X8 from California  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, if they are as affordable

 @BCS8YCX from California  answered…2mos2MO

No, but provide incentives for electric powered cars rather than gas

 @BCRS3GM  from California  answered…2mos2MO

Not knowledgeable enough about gas-powered cars to have a concrete opinion

 @BCRBNZNIndependent from California  answered…2mos2MO

Incentivism based policies that push consumers toward hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles rather than all out bans will have higher yeilds over time rather than the immediate burst followed by punishments and fines a ban would cause.

 @BCQVGR7Democrat from California  answered…2mos2MO

No, add rewards for people with electric cars.

 @BCQRYPZ from California  answered…2mos2MO

Help lower income families buy them. If 75% of people have them that is great.

 @BCPJNG4Democrat from California  answered…2mos2MO

Banning is extreme. Instead, California should incentivize adoption of EV vehicles and disincentivize use of fossil fuel-based vehicles.

 @BCNVMK8 from California  answered…2mos2MO

both types of cars are bad

 @BCNRZ7T from California  answered…2mos2MO

No, but incentives should be created so that companies change their products towards electricity.

 @BC7X2D9 from California  answered…3mos3MO

No, there has to be subsidies for specific situations and the sudden change to electric cars could be somewhat chaotic.

 @BC6XVZ4 from California  answered…3mos3MO

It would be incredibly beneficial to get the majority of California to not use gas-powered vehicles by the year 2035, as long as we make Electric Vehicles, or public transportation, easy to access.

 @BC6SNWV from California  answered…3mos3MO

No, but provide more funding into alternative fuel sources such as ethanol fuel and biodiesel.

 @BC5YPNQSocialist from California  answered…3mos3MO

Introduce incentives for sale of electric, hybrid cars.

 @BC56BG7No Labels from California  answered…3mos3MO

No, but increase solar energy for ALL electric powered products

 @BBWG9LW from California  answered…3mos3MO

No, but such a ban further down the road would be beneficial.

 @BBVH873  from California  answered…3mos3MO

No, electric vehicle parts can be just as dangerous to the environment as emissions

 @RamsHouse  from California  answered…4mos4MO

No, current electric cars are just as bad for the environment as gas cars

 @BBMCXC2 from California  answered…4mos4MO

No, incentivize consumers and manufacturers instead of forcing them.

 @BBJH6HV from California  answered…4mos4MO

I understand the importance of switching to electric vehicles. However, with electric vehicles still being relatively modern, their prices are through the roof. Gas vehicles are cheaper to buy, and to remove that options means leaving many Americans with no way to transport. I believe that electric cars are the future, but we should ensure that they are affordable.

 @BC6TRZQ from California  answered…3mos3MO

No, infrastructure is not ready, subsidies, etc too many problems.

 @BBZ7WYC from California  answered…3mos3MO

We should do this slowly to adapt to electric cars or eco friendly transportation.

 @BBWL442Democrat from California  answered…3mos3MO

Leaning no, what is made to have electric cars is unhealthy for the environment, so I am leaning no.

 @BF39F95 from California  answered…15hrs15H

If you guys are going to lower the cost of electric or hybrid cars then it’s a possibility also pay if there is problems because that is your own doing

 @BCWPLGF from California  answered…2mos2MO

No — and the specific reason matters more than the general position.

First, a clarification the debate rarely makes: the 2035 rule does not ban all gas-powered vehicles equally. Standard hybrids — vehicles with no plug that rely primarily on gasoline — would no longer be sold new after 2035. Plug-in hybrids with at least 50 miles of all-electric range can still be sold, but only as up to 20% of an automaker's new vehicle sales. The rule also does not touch used cars, does not make existing vehicles illegal to own or drive, and does not affect gas stations. What it does…  Read more

 @BCWBCD7 from California  answered…2mos2MO

I support this, provided there are substantial state subsidies for low-income households and a gradual, rather than immediate, phase-out of gas-powered vehicles

 @BDFY7CCRepublican from California  answered…1mo1MO

No

No

Not everybody has the ability to buy a Tesla.

 @BDM3MTM from California  answered…4wks4W

Yes, California should ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, provided the state provides reasonable subsidies for low-income families and ensures a gradual phase-out rather than an abrupt ban

 @BCMR5LG from California  answered…2mos2MO

No, but they should render fuel-inefficient modes of transportation obsolete with exorbitant taxes and invest in high-speed rail and public transportation.

 @BF2M4ZC from California  answered…2 days2D

If it is fundable and truly possible within less than ten years to switch fully to electric cars, then yes.

 @BF2RPSGDemocrat from California  answered…2 days2D

No, there are uses for gas-powered vehicles in cases of emergency, and we have no defined and protected supports for low-income individuals or a backup plan in general

 @BF2YLM7 from California  answered…1 day1D

No but we should put limitations on fossil fuel emissions.

 @BD2DB8Y from California  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, but only if the state provides substantial subsidies for low-income families and ensures a gradual, rather than immediate, phase-out of gas-powered vehicles

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies