California Governor Signs Order Banning Sales Of New Gasoline Cars By 2035

[diz]

California Governor Signs Order Banning Sales Of New Gasoline Cars By 2035

California will phase out the sale of all gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035 in a bid to lead the U.S. in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging the state's drivers to switch to electric cars.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order Wednesday that amounts to the most aggressive clean-car policy in the United States. Although it bans the sale of new gas cars and trucks after the 15-year deadline, it will still allow such vehicles to be owned and sold on the used-car market.

California Governor Signs Order Banning Sales Of New Gasoline Cars By 2035

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order Wednesday that amounts to the most aggressive clean-car policy in the U.S. and would end the sale of new gas vehicles in the state in 15 years.

www.npr.org

I saw this headline but couldn't find a discussion here.

Regardless of whether you think the policy is good or bad, isn't there something missing here?

Like the democratic process? Did I miss something where California now allows it's governor to set policy by dictat?

And isn't there some general principle about not being able to bind future legislatures on top of that in our legal system?

I find it strange a "journalist" would write an entire article on this without questioning these things, but did not see it mentioned in the few articles I read on this.

 

[Aletheia]

Executive orders issued by state governors are not the same as statutes passed by state legislatures and are not law.
State executive orders are usually based on existing constitutional or statutory powers of the governor and do not require any action by the state legislature to take effect

 

[Chillfolks]

I predict a few lawsuits between now and 2035 over this

 

[Craig234]

Regardless of whether you think the policy is good or bad, isn't there something missing here?

It's very good, that's the important thing. California is leading the country as usual.

Like the democratic process? Did I miss something where California now allows it's governor to set policy by dictat?

He's using powers the legislature agrees with or has given him, generally, or the constitution has. The legislature is in agreement with things like this. And so are the voters.

And isn't there some general principle about not being able to bind future legislatures on top of that in our legal system?

There is nothing against setting long-term policies, thank goodness. Future legislatures have the power to change course if they want, but News has put the state on the road toward a goal.

I find it strange a "journalist" would write an entire article on this without questioning these things, but did not see it mentioned in the few articles I read on this.

I think they're widely understood. The article is about the policy, not asking questions about the system of governance.

 

[diz]

He's using powers the legislature agrees with or has given him, generally, or the constitution has. The legislature is in agreement with things like this. And so are the voters.

Cite? I'm curious what exactly gives the governor sweeping powers to ban the sale of a product that has been sold in the state for decades. I wonder what governors in other states (and Trump, of course) will do once they know they can start banning things they don't like by fiat too.

And if the legislature and voters agree with this why not, you know, pass a law? Like we do in democracies?

This seems a particularly silly defense of passing laws by executive decree.

 

[Craig234]

This seems a particularly silly defense of passing laws by executive decree.

Then I don't need to bother helping you.

 

[diz]

Then I don't need to bother helping you.

In this we can agree since I'm obviously not the one that needs help.

Your time would seem to be better spent learning some 7th grade social studies. Like the roles of the legislative and executive branch.

 

[Logical1]

Showing once again what a ******* idiot he is. This is the kind of dictatorial BS freedom loving Americans dislike about the left. They want to run every aspect of everyone's life, including what kind of car you can drive.

 

[Craig234]

In this we can agree since I'm obviously not the one that needs help.

That wrong post is the last one I plan to see from you.

 

[Kurmugeon]

I predict a few lawsuits between now and 2035 over this

Ask the 2035 Lawyers, "How did Californians light their homes before candles?" The answer, Electricity!

 

[diz]

That wrong post is the last one I plan to see from you.

Enjoy your ignorance, seems like you're willing to work hard at it.

 

[TobyOne]

Lulz. The state doesn't have enough electricity because of too much reliance on "clean" energy and now they want all cars to run on electricity. Shit show in a clown car.

 

[diz]

Lulz. The state doesn't have enough electricity because of too much reliance on "clean" energy and now they want all cars to run on electricity. Shit show in a clown car.

I think it's mostly a symbolic decree at this point. Though maybe they're testing to see what their apologists (including the media) will let them get away with by decree.

I recall them putting some EV mandate on the books years ago and then they waived it when decreeing there must be EVs didn't magically cause EVs to exist.

 

[mike2810]

If it holds true I bet there will be a boom on new car sales in 2033 and 2034 and used car prices of gas vehicles will go up in 2035 and later years.