Demise of Gasoline Cars? What We Know About N.Y.’s Ambitious Climate Goals

Here in Fort Lauderdale.... I can tell you that I Never ... Never.... have seen even 1 charging station for electric vehicles 🤔

It seems that every "green" idea has some serious pro-business aspect to it. What a boon for the auto industry to be tasked with replacing all of our vehicles? Replace a $30k vehicle instead of a $6 engine? Sounds like a really good deal to THEM! No, we need to do this right! Replace the problems: the engines and gas tanks! The carbon footprint of replacing a billion internal combustion vehicles in the country would be massive. Talk about waste. It's like replacing a perfectly good, functional kitchen or bathroom with a "green remodel." Hardly. Contradiction in terms right there. Instead, retrofit the existing fleet with electric motors and battery storage. This would create a new industry and provide a lot of jobs. Cost of retrofit would be FAR LESS than replacement. And by doing this, we avoid the heaps and heaps of junk created by throwing away perfectly good vehicles. We're in the middle of a recycling disaster, let's not make it worse. Plus, all the plastic in today's cars won't be recycled.

When it's a choice between gasoline or humanity, the answer is obvious.

Just want to work out the math on this "$48 billion in upfront capital costs — all borne by ratepayers." claim. Assuming a state population of 20 million people and the number of households at 7 million this works out to $2400 per person or $6857 per household. This is to achieve no greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 due to electricity production. Assuming work begins in 2020 that is a 20 year timeline. Thus this will cost the average NY resident $120 a year and average NY household $343 a year. Personally I think that is a great deal and will reduce the costs of emissions including damage from natural disasters and health impacts of this pollution, all for less than I pay each month for Netflix.

It's fitting that the greatest moves against Trump in response to his blithe, unsustainable, earth-hate are coming from his home state of NY. As a Californian, I'm delighted - if not a little envious - if in fact we really are being shown up here. I'm not sure I believe it, but it sounds like a sea change moment either way. Kudos!

This is good news. I'm proud of the state government for being brave enough to confront this issue. New York should be leading this effort! We will reap the benefits of being on the front of the change wave.

I challenge any reader who fears the technology will "cost too much" to calculate your share of the cost of the United States Military, which has lost two wars in the last 20 years and kept exactly zero citizens safe from domestic terrorists.

I applaud this bill and although the naysayers will start saying its going to cost "too much", its about time we all start paying the real cost for our power. The externalities produced by fossil fuel use has been left out of the cost equation for way too long, and its going to be painful to right that wrong, but it must be done because doing nothing, or incrementalism, will not solve this problem fast enough. And personally, I want a future where my friends and family can thrive, not drown and burn and starve. Cool? Cool.

We need to phase out fossil fuels because they will not always be around. But going electric is not pollution-free when plants burn coal and other fossil fuels to generate the electricity. Electric cars simply transfer the pollution from the tailpipe to the power plants. How about nuclear plants? Thee has rightly been called the world's most expensive and dangerous way to boil water. For some reason, most people think the nuclear fuel itself spits out clean electricity instead of being used to generate steam to get the turbines going. That nuclear fuel presents an enormous problem that we still cannot handle. Overall, we made an enormous cultural mistake when we linked individual car ownership with everything from personal power and freedom to sex appeal. Good luck changing the culture after a century of convincing people that they must have at least one car in every garage. We truly blew it with that. https://emcphd.wordpress.com

Green shipwreck. Co2 is not a pollutant. We breathe it out. The climate cult keeps changing the bar. First it was 70s global cooling, than 80 global warming. When the model didn’t work than the latest name change. If you dare question them they hound you down. Bet they would arrest you for daring to question them next. The climate has been changing before we ever industrialized. Even in prehistoric times. This “green deal” is about environmental dogma, not protection.

We need next gen nuclear power and updated infrastructure to provide reliable carbon-free heat and power all those electric cars. But instead, we have "environmentalists" seeding FUD and preventing the improvements we need.

So shouldn't we have a moratorium on all new construction unless it conforms to these new standards? Why would we be building anything which would have to completely retrofitted in less than 30 years. If you want to build a building in NYC, you should have to build a windfarm to power it. If America wants to reduce carbon emissions, why are we letting in over two million immigrants a year? It is like bailing water and punching holes in the bottom of the boat at the same time.

All of this sounds expensive, but the benefits outweigh the costs.

The optimist in me says, "Good for you!" but my practical side thinks a lot of this is will never get off the paper it's written on. We rely so heavily on our current energy system because it's cheap, convenient and consistent. Until you find an alternative that satisfies at least 2 of those 3 metrics you'll have failure moving forward. That's not to say we can't try, but perhaps take smaller, and more achievable steps: We really don't need all these plastic bags, encourage to go items to be made from recyclable materials, we don't need to cover every green patch with concrete and figure out a better way to move large groups of people (fixing the subway system must be the number one priority). And we have to consider nuclear powered plants to generate clean energy. Wind/Solar simply do not have the capacity to carry a population the size of NYC. Splashy plans make for good headlines, but really it's wasting time better spent on achieving actual progress. That won't get the headlines but it just might get you cleaner air.

“The furnace in an average New Yorker’s home will no longer be fossil fuel fired,” said Peter Iwanowicz, the executive director of Environmental Advocates, a lobbying group. “It will probably be electric.” Probably? I must have missed the other alternatives.

New York can’t fix the potholes on the Thruway, but they’re going to meet all our energy needs with clean electricity? Good luck.

Interesting that New York politicians are so certain about climate change based upon numbers and science , when they deny there is a pension problem in NY based upon the numbers and the science

It astonishes me how many people are sure that these climate plans won't work, are too expensive, no one will agree to do them, etc. etc.... but offer no alternative whatsoever. Just ignore it, they seem to say, and the climate problem will go away. But it won't.

Real estate is expensive in NYS. Wind and solar farms not a very good use of land. Farm land is best used for farms. Besides when ice accumulates on those blades it could get thrown hundreds of yards. Heating with electricity is usually triple of natural gas. Base board radiation is cheap to install but not as comfortable as circulated hot water. Owners will get a tax break? Big deal. NYC will mandate electric cars? Who will pay for the infrastructure like charging stations. Who's going to cover the extra cost of of battery powered cars, about 25% greater than ICEV. What if you had to drive to Boston? Where is all that electricity going to come from to charge vehicles. Everyone coming home plugging in their cars and cranking their A/C at 6pm is going to stress the grid. You'll need nuclear power plants and a new grid. Most blue states are really behind in renewable energy if you don't count hydro electric built during the FDR era. Can NYC save the world by cleaning it's emission? I doubt it. Money would be better spent on building dykes. It's just that all the labor that needs to pull this off can't afford NYC anymore. The prediction of sea level rise being between six inches and six feet are not that accurate is. Besides i rather cook with gas.

4th and 5th generation nuclear will make all this possible. It has to be part of the solution.

I don't understand how something this ambitious can work unless the rest of the country or at least the Northeast adopts the same plan. If they don't follow the same approach then their pollution will spill over New York's borders and make it harder for NY to reach its goals. I would look to a smaller scale approach that can be implemented locally.

Congratulations to New York for leading the way to the cost-saving, job creating, clean energy technologies that are transforming society and providing solutions to the impending collapse of our life-supporting ecosystems. Every change is met with "we can't do it" resistance. But, in 1900, New York City streets were dominated by horse and buggies. By 1913 (only 13 years later) - cars had taken over. Last century's investments in hydro power created today's cheapest source of electricity. Building today's wind and solar infrastructure will create the same long-term cost savings. Once these renewable sources are built - when the "water flows, the wind blows, and the sun shines" we'll have inexpensive, fuel-free electricity to power everything. The real losers from our inevitable evolution to clean power, electric vehicles, and non-fossil heating will be the oil companies' loss of the $25+ Billion New Yorkers spend on petroleum every year. Too bad for them - good news for the rest of us. So... let's see... capital investments that create jobs in new technologies, reduce annual energy expenses, provide excellent returns to investors, clean the air, result in less asthma and respiratory illness - and help us leave behind a livable planet for our kids and grand kids. Yes, there are implementation challenges, and the fossil dinosaurs will fight everything. But, it's great to see New York stepping up to create a better future - before we're all extinct.

What a cool article to wake up and read!

A total joke. Wind and solar don't work when there is no wind and no sun. And now we are going to add millions of electric cars to the grid, and heat our houses with electricity and quadruple the price we are paying now. If this is ever enforced, the State of New York will become an abandoned wasteland. Shame on Cuomo of signing this monstrosity.

To think our current political leaders could legislate technology that has not proven itself and then double down on the demand when we do not have sufficient resources for near future capacity is callus and idiotic. Convert all buildings & transportation to a single energy source - Electric. On the other side of the equation... Wind/Solar cannot be scaled to numbers needed or distributed. Battery technology is in it infancy and scalability & reliability unproven. It takes 15-20 years to build a hydro electric dam (ie: Niagara Power Plant) to provide RELIABLE power generation. (Nuclear checks all the boxes but political unpopular - for now.) [Background TED-Why renewables can't save the planet - https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w] Look, we can adjust to all the social & environmental changes- that's evolution. Infrastructure is complicated, time consuming. Constraining a key pillar that sustains community & commerce on a political power exercise is asinine.

How is NY going to generate the power needed when no one will permit nuclear power? How is power going to be stored even if generated? How is NY going to prohibit interstate travel through the state by people who own gasoline powered cars (and on what planet is NYC prepared for the influx of commuters not using gasoline powered vehicles on mass transit systems that are broken? If someone, anyone, had any of the answers to these questions, this would be a lot more credible.

A better approach would be to focus on the efficiencies possible in the cities. It may be nice to clean every last village in rural New York, but the improvements may be minimal, at great cost.

It will never stand up in court. As soon as someone sues the State because they can’t buy that gas guzzling SUV, the law will be felled. While I applaud the attempt, it’s simply unconstitutional and will never hold up in a court of law. But at least they can say they tried

in favor of overhaul, but wow, as usual, these folks haven't got the slightest clue of the economics involved. don't worry, it'll all be subsidized, they say. how? more tax dollars from the rest of us? industries will shoulder the cost. how? great blanket statement "the industry." think of who comprises that and how they're funded and who their workforce is that rely on a profitable industry. usually when dreams meet reality there's some sort of compromise. the democrats running ny, however, don't know how to compromise. this actually makes you laugh... and then cry because we know that we're being led and legislated by those lacking fundamental economic knowledge.

At this time the goals are not realistic, a lot would have to change. It is important to keep in mind that perhaps about two-thirds of the New York State's emissions do not come from NYC and that much of the state consists of red counties. Above Westchester County you are getting into Trump territory. It should be assumed that climate denial is rampant upstate yet getting the full cooperation of upstate counties and towns will be critical. It is a positive step that NYS has set goals that closely align with what the UN says is needed but how it can possibly reach the goals remains very unclear.

How about NJ, or CT, etc? Will the NY border keep out their carbon emissions? Ill conceived plan will accomplish nothing but raise costs, which will ultimately burden the poor. Government regulation in this area is doomed to fail. Until alternative energy is economically feasible on a broad scale, all of these pie-in-the-sky regulations will do nothing. Climate change is real, but the debate over what causes it and what to do about it, if anything, is not settled, despite what Al Gore said. Consider this....if every car in the U.S. were electric, the power grid couldn't handle it, and more fossil fuel power plants would need to be built, unless we moved to nuke power (like France). Wind and solar are not enough to move off fossil fuel. R&D to produce practical alternative energy will bear fruit eventually, but that could take a long time.

Why does Hang say it is unattainable? I'd like to hear his reasoning.

I just wonder why so little has been done so far? I wonder why our state is behind in legalizing marijuana and not having ample ocean farming by a company like Greenwave. When I see the subway stations crumble and all the corruption I wonder if this will really happen.

I worked for NYSDEC for 42 years. This is not the first "energy plan" nor will it be the last. My experience tells me that just about nothing will come from this. As Wally said in Dilbert; "I like long range planning because it is planning and it is long range."

Before NY tackles world climate, we might want to see how they handle subways, something that is child’s play in comparison.

This is a switch, industries would pay not the wealthy. Do we get a voucher to retrofit the electric heat from our oil furnace.