[nikitaga]

How far into the future would be both meaningful and realistic before banning the main product of a huge, mass market, capital intensive industry?

Anything past the current government's remaining term (< 5 years) can easily be dismissed as "unrealistic" by the next government, meanwhile at the moment pure electric alternatives to some types of vehicles, e.g. offroad SUVs, either don't exist, or at best are in the blindly-preorder-for-next-year-fingers-crossed stage.

With legislation like this popping up in many different jurisdictions, it is extremely unlikely that car manufacturers will just sit around in their lobbying chairs and hope for all the bans to be reversed everywhere. Every manufacturer sees the writing on the wall already thanks to such laws.

By all measures, it is better to pass this law now with a 15 year deadline than in 10 years but with a 5 year deadline. Passing it now with a 5 year deadline, or passing it 10 years ago with a 15 year deadline are not on the table. But the latter option will be on the table 10 years from now, since this law has just passed.

[throwaway0a5e]

>How far into the future would be both meaningful and realistic before banning the main product of a huge, mass market, capital intensive industry?

Infinite or undefined.

You can't just ban the technology that underpins most transportation (which underpins the economy). It doesn't work like that. You can try. It won't work out well. You have to replace it with something better and let the lions share of the changeover be voluntary. Only then is it realistic to ban the remnants.

[nikitaga]

It will work out just fine. What's "better" in transportation is shaped to a large degree by government's policies, from taxes to incentives to investment in basic research and infrastructure to promises of future bans, yes.

True, the eradication of fossil fuel powered cars could have instead been achieved by means of an effective carbon tax. However, in Canada this is not politically feasible, the feds barely managed to pass a very small carbon tax that will not significantly affect demand on fossil fuel cars. Banning gas powered cars wholesale on the other hand is much more acceptable thanks to the 14 year lead time. Manufacturers are now incentivized to make their electric cars better, or risk losing business in many countries to others who do.

Leaded fuel, asbesthos, trans fats, supersonic planes, and a ton of other things were once legal, yet their replacements weren't "better" when seen through an egoistic free-market lens (asbesthos is still used in countries that didn't ban it).

[dapf]

You think the government has your best interest in heart. How endearing.

[PoignardAzur]

> You have to replace it with something better and let the lions share of the changeover be voluntary. Only then is it realistic to ban the remnants.

Yeah, but replacing it with something better needs a lot of capital-intensive work to be done first.

The industry has a lot more incentive to perform that work now if the government sends a strong signal that only companies that did the work (eg switched to producing electric cars) will make money in the future.

[belval]

Well that's why we have subsidies on electric car though. In canada it's almost a 10k$ discount so it does give all carmakers an incentive to fill that niche because the increased cost of an electric vehicule is partially covered by the gov.

[jollybean]

'Smoking Free' bars were rare until smoking was banned.

Regulatory edicts have immense power to move needles.

Canada has several, major industries that have to make massive adjustments, a 'timeline' is very helpful to manage the transition.

[dapf]

The transition to what? Where is the alternative?

Don't you think that if the alternative was feasible it would have already been implemented without coercion?

[majewsky]

Not necessarily. Making a technology of this magnitude "feasible" requires substantial investments on a scale that requires buy-in from politics and the populous.

Just look at how cars got where they are now. If cities had not invested in converting cobbled streets into asphalt streets [1], if nations had not invested in building highway networks, cars would not have been "feasible", as you say.

[1] In hindsight, asphalt may look like the only plausible solution for city streets, but it actually causes a bunch of problems with drainage and microclimate because it completely seals the surface. In cities where traffic relies more heavily on walking, bicycles and trams, you will see more cobbled streets because they work better in these aspects.

[jollybean]

"Don't you think that if the alternative was feasible it would have already been implemented without coercion?"

No, probably not.

It would be very easy for industry to just chug along cars with combustion engines.

Nobody owns the market, and certainly nobody controls the vast value chains and incidental markets.

The more obvious issues are batteries and electricity production and distribution.

Tesla would not be possible without constant 'Climate Change Marketing' from government and other sources - and - subsidies, which are a non-market force.

There are too many variables to switch, and it works better if there is some kind of 'plan' - regulatory apparatus help shape that.

The 'lighter the better' I think in this case the timing of the announcement and phase out is just about right.

[elipsey]

This comment almost seems to willfully satirize libertarianism. Does it follow that if a goal hasn't been accomplished without a state mandate, it must be impossible?

It might be in this particular case, but to be convincing we would need to show our work, or at least make a more specific argument.

[derekp7]

You can do this through taxes. Right now there are tax breaks on green options. In the future have an increasing tax penalty on non-green options.