Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

We do have a choice because, on paper, we do have a choice in choosing those countries’ politicians. I know I’ll never give my vote to a politician keen on banning gasoline cars.

It’s sadly also true that the technocrats actually taking those decisions are a lot less directly accountable, but nothing that a second “yellow vests” movement won’t be able to fix.



I on the other hand, I applaud the politicians who had the guts to push the ICE car sales ban against the push-back of the established cars manufacturers.

ICE cars are such a nuisance in cities by polluting the air. I look forward to a time when my children will be able to enjoy clean air in the cities.


I call this egoism. Modern ecologism just aims to make a nice walled garden around their voters, they don't care what is happening outside this garden. In the reality, other parts of the country/earth is getting polluted to produce the goods.

I much prefer the older ways with polluting factory in the city, at least everyone could see what it takes to provide each good, and share its cost. The current way of doing things is to ban everything, which force manufacturers to produce elsewhere in the world and import it. Plus we are loosing knowledge in the process.


The thing is producing a product for the entire world in one place has massive economies of scale vs producing things locally in every other city or even 1 factory per country. While going back to Victorian-era local production would turn cities back into the garbage dumps they once were, I highly doubt it would end up lowering emissions.


Producing an ICE is also polluting. Producing gasoline is also polluting. This is not an argument against banning ICEs.


> I on the other hand, I applaud the politicians who had the guts to push the ICE car sales ban against the push-back

I can't agree, because forceful bans are not the best way to accomplish change.

Simply keep improving battery technology to bring prices down and range up and it'll take a natural course once buying an EV becomes cheaper than an ICE car. Implementing bans makes it political and builds resentment which is counterproductive. Building a better product and letting the market decide works so much better.


Banning ICE cars in cities is completely different from banning ICE car sales in whole countries.


Could you help us understand why you would like to keep buying gasoline cars?

(Edit: I see that you are being down voted. Perhaps elaborating on your desire to continue to be able to buy gasoline cars might help clarify your position better)


Some people like freedom of choice, I guess. Like in a democracy, where you can vote whatever candidate you like, except here is with your wallet. Others like dictatures.


ICE produce proven carcinogenic pollutants.

Your freedom to intoxicate other people goes against their freedom to remain unharmed.

(Not to mention noise, environmental damage, geopolitical risks surrounding oil... all well proven stuff)


Oh, I am no fan of ICE engines, at all. Hate them, personally.

But I know how harmful heavy handed-mandates can be. I have seen the damage such mandates have already made in other instances with voters being then easily recruited and radicalized by populist politicians.

This is a delicate issue, already highly politicized and deeply hypocritical for both sides. Completely curtailing people’s freedoms is not the way to approach it, if you want to change anything.


It's wild to imagine that people would widely violently protest against such a change. Like, I find it pretty amusing to look back at the old news broadcasts of people objecting to allowing women in bars or disallowing drunk driving or requiring cars to come with seatbelts, but those all just feel like they're from a completely different time. If people in this day will espouse similarly intelligent positions, it'll be so interesting.


I guess the problem is electric cars aren't cheap, even in SH market and public transport in some parts of europe and us just sucks. For example I can totally see banning selling ice cars in netherlands, sweeden, norway, israel and other regions with good transportation and richer people, but banning them in us, italy, greece, romania and other similar states (either because they're poor or public transport is bad) is a hard sell


They will become cheap though. As manufacturers move downmarket and the used Ev market grows. Maybe even cheaper than gas in the end - simpler, more reliable etc


One of the most popular cars in Romania (and a lot of EU)is 10k euro Dacia, it has a nice range and can be repaired pretty cheap. if you say electric cars with a somewhat similar range will get that cheap, even sh, well, I hope we'll get that future) For now we have a 12k euro dacia spring, that is heavily subsidized(18k normal price) and with a real range of 100-150km depending on weather and speed, so we have some way to go


If they become that cheap, there won't be any need to ban ICEVs.


Yes and no - the incoming ban will force investment in downmarket EVs, helping make them cheap. If it works as planned then it won’t actually need to be enforced by the time the clock runs out, because EVs will be better all round. Funny little incentive paradox


If it was cheaper now for people to buy EV over ICE upfront (externalities be damned because "loin des yeux loin du couer" [not like most people buying EV now give a damn about the supply chain for the minerals that go into the batteries...]), there would be very little push back. It's really not that difficult to understand.


Why is it so important for you to be able to pollute a bit more when commuting?


First of all, the poster was writing about the legal elimination of an option, which is does not fit such reduction.

Some people value the qualities that the current (pun happened) alternatives do not offer: they are inadequate for some use cases. This includes long travel and refuelling in minutes.

Furthermore, since societies are now suffering an epidemic of lunacy, electric cars can be extreme noise pollutants, because insane manufacturers and users have turned them into a loud cacophonic concert - I have seen them. They can be unbearable.

They also seem to be internet connected in a staggering amount of cases, and many refuse to drive "a smartphone with wheels", or more explicitly a madness with uselessly installed security holes and privacy compromisers. This is especially relevant for The Car, the device that was built for deliverance - "our way to escape", as Karl Kraus said.


> Furthermore, since societies are now suffering an epidemic of lunacy, electric cars can be extreme noise pollutants, because insane manufacturers and users have turned them into a loud cacophonic concert - I have seen them. They can be unbearable.

Well, isn't it then peoples choice to do that? Or do you instead argue for a ban of EVs? I don't get this point.

I've never heard an electric car making more noise than the road noise. Which of course is annoying in itself going at high speeds, but still less than an ICE. What you're describing is absolutely not something of the ordinary. ICEs revving their engine in residential streets, however...


> Well, isn't it then peoples choice to do that?

No, you cannot have any freedom to be uselessly bothersome. That is basic in social rules. If you are missing that evidence, it is because societies have become extremely lax (especially in practical and mental effort. It's called a downfall).

> making more noise than the road noise

The topical noise is that which comes from the additional, artificial noises that are placed to warn the surrounding beings of the traffic, as a consequence of the fact that the vehicle would be less noisy because of the absence of the engine.

In a normal car you have the "natural" mechanical noises (hopefully muffled), whereas the lunatics have placed in a number of models a broadcast background sound that you could - if you never heard it - be assimilated to the starting sounds of operating systems in the nineties. Only, permanent during the running of the vehicle. The new noise is not "grey" as it was, but textured, like a chord of synthetic strings.

So, the prospect is of having streets full of running loudspeakers shouting their own unnatural chords. Which also means that even if you decided to live in an isolated spot of land you should not remain less then a few miles away from any street, if legislation and good un-common sense will not intervene.

> I've never heard

I have heard the scream from least two models from stellantis (probably from the same project); I am informed that the Bayern and others have researched sound textures of their own to promote the brand. I also have information that producers have contacted agencies to produce ringtones for their brand. Moreover, I have seen some implement beeps during parking operations - so your city will sound like a giant construction site.

--

Update: some passed by and left a silent note. Confirming the root point! The downfall is restricting people's freedom practically and creates a problem with freedom deontically.


> electric cars can be extreme noise pollutants

walk, bike and horse are better solutions for noise, not ICE cars. Ban all cars?


No: ban stupidity.

Solutions are chosen for the balance in cost, risks and benefits. Noisy but useful, within boundaries, ok. (Note: some of us are bothered already by motorways miles away when in otherwise isolated woodlands - but we are aware that traffic somehow must flow, and know that we have to select more distant places.)

Electric cars are becoming a massive threat in terms of noise pollution because people have become dumb and passive - cannot perceive and cannot react. The issue is not intrinsic in the technology, but it is part of reality: opportunity for madness + latent madness → disaster.

> not ICE cars

You do not seem to understand: the noise some fools put into electric vehicles is completely different. As in, "not a hum but brass" - where "hum" can be annoying and "brass" will surely be. See my other post nearby.


Important also to consider the degree to which we choose (while improving our own environment) to get others to pollute on our behalf and suffer the consequences - as in the extensive environmental damage caused by lithium and cobalt mining. This is not an argument against EV or renewables by any means but let's ensure we maintain a realistic assessment of all pros and cons. Up to 70% of cobalt is produced in the Congo where up to 200,000 people work for around $3 a day. This is a good wage locally which conveniently translates to an excellent price for us in the West to enjoy clean air cities.

https://earth.org/lithium-and-cobalt-mining/


Yup, best would be to get rid of the car dependence. Make walk-able cities for people, not cities designed for cars.


People do not necessarily live in cities.


Why is it so important to plant goal posts where parent doesn't?

Some people like to have the freedom to choose between things, it isn't about trying to be some kind of villain.


Then explain how polluting and making lots of noise is freedom? Is speed limits imposing on your freedom to drive as fast as you want? Seat belt laws imposing on your freedom to have your kids unsecured in the car? I seriously don't understand this mindset.


Of course it's about freedom.

What some people don't want to hear is that their freedom must be limited where it impacts other people. Nobody is alone in the world.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: