Well that’s it for a big part of the Oil industry I guess

Such a bad idea. ICOs might be the best way forward, running on fossil or not. There's many reasons petrol and diesel have been used for such a long time in transportation. A hybrid might very well use the best of both worlds, electricity for short trips and liquid fuel for range.

If we can't get the electricity grid fossil free, which will be extremely challenging in ~10 years, they will still be running on fossil.

*Edit: I can see my point is not agreed with. But I am strongly against banning ANY technology, this was my main point. There are very, very few expeptions in my mind.

As an example one can argue that nuclear weapons are a positive force, besides clean? energy, in the sense that there has been no world war since their development. They may be banned but they are not easily removed. Thus we have MAD (mutually assured destruction). Let technology run it's course and keep the politicians away from meddling with things they don't understand.

Jesus, is your brain only filled with FUD or has some reality managed to wiggle its way in there as well?

Maybe do a bit of research on how all of your points don’t hold up to reality. There is exactly a 0% chance that ICE cars are “the best way forward.” The reason they’ve been used is that you don’t have to pay the full cost of transport, deferring that onto later generations.

EVs are also far more carbon efficient even when powered by coal, that argument is nonsensical.

This is a ban on new sales, maybe we’ll be able to lift it someday when we’re 100% renewable and we can make efuels with the abundant extra energy output, but right now it’s an obvious gushing wound trying to kill us all.

Good the money grubbing fucks can go piss in the wind.

Just a list of current wars for you

https://geneva-academy.ch/galleries/today-s-armed-conflicts

How are you so sure there's a 0% chance? I said the MAY be, not are the best way. Any ban hurts technology progress. ICOs might make a comeback from some amazing discovery. Obviously not likely but still.

I agree my arguments are weak and don't seem to hold up. (I eyed on some studies just now).

[removed]

I understand basic physics and I'm an engineer in the automotive space. It's pretty easy to tell that ICE has writing on the wall (ICE by the way, ICO isn't a thing).

We've basically worked out every possibility for the ICE. Efficiency is theoretically limited, we know what it's limited to, and we're pretty damn close to that. It's provably impossible to progress on efficiency, and even if we did, they would still be putting out more carbon and NOx than any xEV.

Hydrogen ICE still produces NOx, eFuels require an abundance of clean green energy to be even remotely worth it and those are basically the two paths forward for the ICE. For commuting and medium distance, BEVs are the clear winner, they're also just more profitable than ICE cars, and as more models become available, cheaper for consumers too, so everyone's going to switch anyway.

This ban is enhancing tech progress, as we'll be adopting and improving a clearly superior technology faster with the ban than having to wait for consumers to decide while we continue to pass of the costs of using carbon emitting fuels to the next generations (when they'll have to deal with climate catastrophes rather than advancing tech as a functional society).

Thanks for a nice summary, although I disagree with your last point. But does not really matter. To me you just named all the reasons a ban is not needed, the EV tech seems superior in it self.

It’s called a consumer protection law. If a climate catastrophe happens and we go to war over what resources are left, that would be detrimental to human technological advancement.

There’s no possible way to advance the tech, so bans direct resources to things that will help.