144
In contrast to the people below, and as a Californian who still owns a gas car: good.
Gas powered vehicles need to go. Gas externalizes too many of its costs already.
What alternative transportation is California going to provide then? I agree, cars suck, but you’ve got to give people something realistic and convenient, otherwise you’re just putting a paywall on freedom of movement.
The idea was to transition everyone to EVs. The problem is that not everyone can afford to just up and buy a new vehicle, and it's naive to think people can get by without one, especially in much of CA and the rest of the US where public transit absolutely blows. They're putting the cart before the horse and not giving a shit about people who aren't the monopoly man, as is tradition.
That seems to be the case. I’m really surprised how many people are downvoting this thread of comments just for having a realistic discussion about the drawbacks to financially penalizing cars. Nobody here is advocating for big oil, but you’d sure think that from the reaction.
Eh it always turns into a touchy subject. Like yeah we needed to transition away from burning fuel yesterday, but at the same time we still need a viable path forward for people to move themselves and good around, which hasn't really gone far. Yes EVs are a good solution and they're improving at a good pace, but they don't cover every use case yet, which is where we need to focus. At the same time, we also need to be leaning into building out public transit networks that render most personal transport needs unnecessary.
For instance, we need a viable EV for OTR transport, as well solutions for trains and ocean/air shipping. We also need better solutions for contractors and the like, as well as vehicles that can achieve longer range.
You seem to assume price doesn't influence demand. When you assume that, it makes it difficult to figure out what kind of a discussion you are looking for.
If we keep gas prices low, there is little to incentive to switch.
If gas prices are high, it makes alternative transportation investment make more sense.
So ... if you could clarify how you feel this should be approached that eliminates the burning of fossil fuels without some fairly fundamental societal changes that will be felt, that might be helpful.
I know price influences demand, but it doesn’t address need. Most of California is designed in a way that basically requires a car—it isn’t like the northeast with convenient and affordable trains to take you anywhere you need to go.
Yes, this method will likely convince some people to switch, and it will likely reduce car usage as well, but it will also place a huge financial burden on people who need their vehicle to live and who can’t afford an electric vehicle, which not only costs more to buy, but also costs more to maintain and has a shorter lifespan than gas cars.
California has an immense amount of money compared to other states. If you are asking me to come up with a better solution than making gas prohibitively expensive, my solution would probably be to emulate New York City, but statewide.
Make every city extremely walkable. Create subways in those cities for extended travel, ideally with more of an eye towards accessibility than New York has. Create an extensive high speed rail system that goes between cities and towns that is faster and more convenient than a car. Make the carrot of other transportation options absolutely massive, and then incorporate the stick of higher gas prices.
The downside to that approach is that it would likely be a multi-trillion dollar investment. You could potentially lower the cost a little by excluding some smaller towns from this overhaul, but those people should be given something to make that equitable, like giving them a massive discount on buying electric cars somehow.
I’m no politician or expert, I know I don’t have all the answers, but I do know that I am someone who would be driven to poverty if I had to buy a new car right now or pay $8 for gas, especially factoring in the extremely high cost of living in California.
Let's run a rail line up the middle of the 5. We can give up some traffic lanes.
I've thought it'd be pretty nifty to replace the carpool lanes with rail transit, but then Fast track/The Toll Roads wouldn't be able to keep up their Lexus lanes.
They're already was one, and this might help us get away from that
Yeah as much of an environmentalist that I am, I don't think prices surging that high in California (and the west coast in general, is my understanding) would be great from an environmental aspect. In the short term there would be some reduction in gas use, but I can imagine Republicans and other pouncing on this politically to roll back some environmental legislation.
but I can imagine Republicans and other pouncing on this politically to roll back some environmental legislation.
They're already doing that anyway today and gas is nowhere near $8/gallon.
That is true, but people start to agree with Republicans more when they personally affected. People don't like spikes in the price of anything, especially gasoline.
Last time I was in California, it was over half way to $8 already.
Edit: not sure why people are downvoting, it’s just a simple fact that was confirmed by another poster too. Numbers are numbers. Here’s a website showing the current prices in Ventura to be over $4:
$6 at the station closest to me today
4 bucks where I am.
My town has had the price pegged at about $5.50/gal (diesel) for the last couple years, despite fuel trending closer to $4.25/gal lately elsewhere.
The shutdown, and resulting price increase is twofold.
- It gives them an excuse to set prices where they want, despite a global collapse in prices, allowing them to pad their profit margins.
- It puts pressure on governments to remove regulations and taxes, allowing the companies to increase their profit margin.
Its a long running song and dance, it is complete garbage and they need to be prosecuted.
Assuming they don't just do that anyway
They will try regardless but giving them a reason will only help them succeed
Education rates are just too high out here for Republicans to succeed, but we do have to have actual governing as were a highly populated state with very specific needs, so in all likelihood this will be remedied.
-
California gas is more expensive because refinement laws were enacted to make it burn cleaner. I've literally witnessed the positive effect of this over the course of my life living in California. The smog situation in the valley is not nearly as bad as it used to be.
-
This is unlikely to happen because basically no one could afford this and companies have to sell their product.
Good. Hopefully it will encourage more protected bike Lanes and rail Transit
And when are those rail projects getting built? Oh yeah, they keep stalling out.
I'm all for reducing car dependency, but we need viable alternatives before, not as an afterthought.
Alternatives are much more likely to exist if the need for them exists prior to creation rather than after
they stall for political reasons. $8 gas will make cali super motivated to get it done
You're gonna have to pickup all the cleaning ladies, cooks, construction workers, lawns care, mechanics etc at their home.... Or encampment. You may be at an encampment. This is bad.
BUT ITS DOWN TO 1.98!!!
this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
144 points (100.0% liked)
News
29346 readers
3073 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS