California City Bans New Gas Stations and Also Says No More Pumps

Mish

The Petaluma, California, City Council unanimously moved to ban new gas stations, and existing stations will not be allowed to add any new gas pumps.

No More Pumps

Electrek discusses Petaluma's Ban on New Gas Stations.

Existing gas stations aren’t being shut down in Petaluma. It’s just that no new ones will be built, because there are enough – one within a five-minute drive of every residential area in the city, in fact, as the Santa Rosa Press Democrat writes. The plan is to accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles, and Petaluma’s City Council, with a population of around 60,000, feels its 16 existing gas stations is enough.

Electrek’s Take

Petaluma is the first seed planted, and many will follow and sprout, first in California, and then in other US states like Washington. For example, the Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations (CONGAS) is working to ban gas stations in Sonoma County, California, and its nine cities.

Just as the world is moving away from coal and other fossil fuels and toward green energy, so too will towns and cities follow in Petaluma’s footsteps by deciding they have enough gas stations as EV numbers rise and ICE cars fall. The number of charging stations will multiply, and the number of gas stations will shrink.

Enough is Enough

If 16 gas stations are indeed "enough", then few if any new gas stations would be built anyway.

But who should decide how many is enough?

The free market would regulate "enough" quite easily. City councils are clueless.

Amusing Comments 

Peruse through the comments to Electrek's article. There are some real gems.

Alpha Gardner: "A good step in the right direction. Please also ban existing gas stations - burning of gasoline and Diesel fuel on public streets."

The reply by KeepRunningYourMouth is interesting: "Just cut to the chase, attack the real problem and ban making any new people. Once human population gets back below 2 billion, we should be good to go."

Carbon Crisis?

Let's say we accept that manmade CO2 is a problem and the scientists are 100% correct. Let's further assume that none of the lies and data manipulations by various scientists never happened.

What's left are proposals from Al Gore, AOC and others cost $50 trillion to $90 trillion.

50 Years of Dire Predictions

In case you missed it Let's Review 50 Years of Dire Climate Forecasts and What Actually Happened.

Here's point #21 of dire forecasts made in 2014. "We have 500 days to Avoid Climate Chaos" said then Sec of State John Kerry and Biden's current climate czar.

Scientifically speaking, I have a question: Have 500 days passed?

All of these hype stories are actual lies to get the politically correct agenda going now. 

Key Questions

  1. How much money are we willing to spend to reduce our 14.5% and falling percentage of carbon emissions?
  2. What would it cost to cut that by half in 10 years?
  3. Assuming we could cut that in half in 10 years, what would it do to total carbon output?
  4. By what force do we get China, India, and all the developing economies in the Mideast and Africa to reduce their carbon output?
  5. Assuming we achieve number 4 peacefully by some sort of economic buyout like cap-and-trade what is the cost to the US?
  6. What about inflation?
  7. Sure, China is producing goods for the US and EU but do we want that to stop? When? Why? How? Cost?
  8. Does not China, India, Africa, etc., have the right to improve their standards of living?
  9. What do the above points imply about the US standard of living?
  10. How the hell do we pay for this?

Accepting Science

This is not a matter of "accepting science" as the climate fearmongers say.

It's a matter of coming up with a reasonable plan to do something sensible about it, knowing full well the oceans are going to keep rising for the next 100 years anyway!

GM to Phase Out Gas-Powered Vehicles by 2035, Carbon Neutral by 2040

On January 28, I noted GM to Phase Out Gas-Powered Vehicles by 2035, Carbon Neutral by 2040

But that does not appease the climate morons who want to ban existing gas stations now and of course natural gas which produces the energy to power the electric vehicles. 

Meanwhile, I have sarcastically commented a few times: The number one thing people can do to reduce their carbon footprint is stop breathing. 

Since few will voluntarily do so, then I suggest do not drive, do not not eat out, do not watch TV, do not not heat or cool the apartment and above all don't have kids. 

Mish

Comments (57)
No. 1-18
TexasTim65
TexasTim65

The owners of those 16 gas stations are sitting on a gold mine because they will become defacto monopolies if the city sticks to that. In fact they could easily collude to charge any amount for fuel that they wanted knowing there would be no competition possible.

I also wonder what would happen if a pump breaks or a gas station burned down. Would it be allowed to be replaced?

Doug78
Doug78

I have no problem with a town being a Guinea pig on this as long as I don't live there. I am curious to see how they will pay for repairing and laying new roads. I bet they put on a tax on electricity. That should be very popular.

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer

Petaluma isnt a place that's been growing a lot anyway.. it is literally just a small town on the way to the coast or to wine country. When was the last new gas station built there anyway? Most of these smaller towns in northern california were never excited about growth anyway. Ironically some of these places feel like a rural midwestern town.

Dutoit
Dutoit

It would also be good to do something against the damage caused by the production of devices that will replace the old energy, based on fuel or gas, for example batteries. This damage is produced outside California and US. Is it a good reason to ignore it ?
Does your 14.5% include the emissions caused by products that you use, imported from China ?

Feedback
Feedback

Crazy how we so freely question the status quo defacto scientific priest class regarding climate change (rightfully so), but cringe and coil back at questioning them regarding the Rona.
The same points Mish makes at the end of the article apply to both.
"If you care about economics more than you do old people....." blah blah blah.
The idiocy is everywhere. Fear is the justification for every inch that is being taken.

PecuniaNonOlet
PecuniaNonOlet

“ What's left are proposals from Al Gore, AOC and others cost $50 trillion to $90 trillion.”

This line got me thinking, how many billions or trillions were spent building up the oil industrial complex: exploration rigs, pipelines, refineries, petrochemicals, terminals, gas stations, storage tanks, etc. Was it $10 trillion or $100 trillion over the last hundred years adjusted for inflation?

Why was it ok to spend money on oil industry but green is forbidden or dumb? And dont tell me oil companies didnt receive taxpayer dollars. And what does money matter if the fed creates it out of thin air or digital ether?

Lots of ways to look at an issue.

Sechel
Sechel

Since gas stations are environmental hazzards i'd say the cities very much get to decide. Petaluma has a population of 57,941. we're not talking Los Angeles or San Francisco. That said California has always been rather progressive. The best way to get the country converted which is going to happen and is not open a debatable point is not by baning petrol stations but by encouraging electric filling stations. The best way to do that is to move state and federal fleets to electric. This will immediatley spark demand for the private sector to meet. There are potentially thousands of federal, state and city vehicles. This is how its done.

Sechel
Sechel

Volvo will be all electric by 2030. GM and Ford soon after. The country is going electric.

davebarnes2
davebarnes2

This is symbolic feel good posturing.
The number of gas stations has been declining in the USA over the last 40 years.
By 2060, they will be extinct.
Market forces.

njbr
njbr

New outrage every day....

That's kind of the definition of snowflakism.

How hard do you have to be looking for these outrage sources?

Is there a special outrage network out there (oops, FOX, WSJ, Breitbart, Newsmax, OANN). I guess there is.

No additional gas stations in Petaluma. It's a decision for the city to make. Average clean-up costs for a gas stations leaky tanks is $ 275,000 and the life of a tank is about 15 years.

Is there a shortage of gas in the area? Will prices go up? Most likely no--it's not a closed system and prices of the existing ones are in line with the region with the 16 that are there. Would 10 more make prices go down, or drive out the existing ones.

numike
numike

meh If this little town wants to not grant building/occupancy permits to gas stations..let em. But when they will only allow persons of color that have incomes less that 24,000 a year reside there or only persons with disabilities or only LGBTQ persons or.... than maybe get in a huff

omera
omera

As an owner of 2015 Leaf, I still disagree a city deciding to ban new gas stations. If someone REALLY cares about environment, and carbon emission is just one variable, they need to first recognize an ICE (internal Combustion Engine) car design is so wrong in many levels for transportation of regular folks' daily travels. An ICE that needs so many supplemental "cooling", "oiling", "transmission", "breaking" services -and dispose of hazardous materials- that when you own an EV, it is like day and night. My 6 year old car needed only a 4 new set of tires and 2 sets of windshield wipers until now and that's it. But yes the range is not long and it is getting shorter each day -growing pain of a new technology-. For that the city instead should encourage installation of new charging stations and giving incentives for EV owners to install in house tier2 (30A, 220V charger, 6.4KWh) charging systems to allow grid stress friendly way to charge their cars. You can only encourage a new technology by allowing it grow not artificially killing the alternative.

3 Replies

KidHorn
KidHorn

EV owners go through tires about 2x as fast as comparable ICE cars because the cars are much heavier. Which also increases wear and tear on roads.

Carl_R
Carl_R

Curb weight of a Nissan Leaf 4 door hatchback is 3538 pounds. Curb weight of a Honda CR-V 4 Door Hatchback is 3398. A difference of 4% doesn't seem to be "much heavier" to me. I know that back in the 1970's electric cars burned through tires, not because of weight, as a Sebring-Vanguard Citicar weighed in at only 600 lbs, but because ozone was generated by the electric motor, and also was generated during the charging process. Ozone destroys natural rubber (i.e. tires).

If you smell a clean fresh smell, like after a thunderstorm, that's ozone, and it will damage tires.

Carl_R
Carl_R

Raising the price of a technology is you want to see less of is a perfectly valid and effective way of influencing change. The normal approach, though, would be to tax it to raise the price, rather than raising the price by increasing the profit margin of the businesses sell it.

Sechel
Sechel

Just the term climate fear mongers tells me this isn't a serious question but a rant

njbr
njbr

Does it mollify you to know that a 17th one is going to be built in 15 square miles? So there will be 1.13 gas stations per square mile? And that you could have one right outside the city limits if you really felt that there was a pent-up demand for gasoline?

Eddie_T
Eddie_T

OT: Dollar strong today. Gold weak. I expect more selling pressure today. Gold is getting smacked a bit at the open. If we can bounce off 1700 today I will probably reload the fun trade.

KidHorn
KidHorn

Electric cars are the future. I think sooner or later the number of gas stations will start going down.

jsm76
jsm76

Johnie down the street is running a great business making people "disappear". Should the government step in and regulate that or do we let the free market decide?


Global Economics

FEATURED
COMMUNITY