Skip to main content

Should Gas-Powered Cars Be Banned by 2035?

The EU banned new gas vehicle sales by 2035; California matched it. Norway leads with over 90% EV market share. Does a hard deadline accelerate the inevitable — or burden rural and working-class Americans unfairly? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.

Thursday, December 3, 2026 · 7:00 PM EST

Upcoming

1 registered
Contribute now

What’s at stake

A 2035 ban either pushes the clean-energy transition past its tipping point or becomes the defining example of democracies failing to impose necessary collective sacrifice.

The opposing positions

Resolved: The United States should ban the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035

PRO: Mandate the transition

Battery costs have fallen 90 percent in a decade, Norway is already at 90 percent EV sales without a ban, and the transition is happening regardless. A hard deadline locks in the timeline before the fossil fuel industry lobbies its way to another decade of delay.

  • Transportation accounts for approximately 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and new vehicles sold today will still be on the road in 2045. A 2035 ban on new gas vehicle sales does not remove any existing car; it shapes the fleet that will dominate emissions in the 2040s and 2050s. The climate window for keeping warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius closes during exactly that decade.
  • Battery costs have fallen from $1,100 per kilowatt-hour in 2010 to under $100 in 2024, a 90 percent reduction in 14 years. At current trajectories, EVs will be cheaper to purchase and substantially cheaper to operate than gas vehicles by 2030, without any mandate. The ban does not force consumers to buy more expensive cars; it aligns the regulatory endpoint with a market transition that is already underway.
  • Norway reached over 90 percent EV market share in 2023 through consistent incentive policy, but that success required 30 years of uninterrupted commitment. The US does not have 30 years. A hard 2035 deadline creates the long-term certainty automakers need to commit capital to transition fully; without it, they maintain internal combustion production lines as a hedge that delays the investment needed to close cost gaps for everyone.

CON: The mandate is premature

A 2035 ban prices out rural and working-class Americans who cannot afford an EV, cannot charge one at an apartment, and live nowhere near a charging network. Policy should support the market transition without coercing people before the infrastructure exists to serve them.

  • The average EV price in 2024 remains above $50,000, and the federal tax credit reaches fewer than half of buyers due to income caps and vehicle price limits. Rural Americans drive longer distances, cannot charge at home in rented apartments, and live far from public charging networks. A mandate that functions well for urban professionals is effectively a prohibition on affordable personal transportation for everyone else.
  • Mining the lithium, cobalt, and manganese required for EV batteries produces significant environmental harm in Chile, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Indonesia, including water table destruction, worker exploitation, and community displacement. Replacing tailpipe emissions with mining emissions in other countries does not solve the global problem; it relocates it. The lifecycle emissions of EVs are better than gas vehicles, but the honest accounting is more complex than advocates typically present.
  • China controls 75 percent of global battery manufacturing capacity and dominates the processing of critical minerals required for EV batteries. An accelerated US EV mandate that depends on Chinese supply chains transfers American automotive supply chain leadership to a strategic competitor at the worst possible geopolitical moment. Genuine energy independence requires a domestic battery manufacturing capacity that does not yet exist at the scale a 2035 mandate would require.

Contribute now

Add your perspective

Record a 60-second take or write an argument. Your contribution can stand on its own, and the discussion stays open.

Start here

Contribute now

A 60-second video or a written argument. You do not need an opponent to get started.

Write an argument

Share only material you have permission to make public.

Optional

Exchange responses

Choose whether to be paired. An exchange starts only after both people accept.

Pairing is not available on this page yet. You can still contribute or respond to a public take.

At a set time

Live attendance

Live attendance is separate from your contribution. Check the showcase details for any scheduled session.

Check showcase details

PRO: Mandate the transition

CON: The mandate is premature

Or make your case in writing

“Transportation accounts for roughly 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and new vehicles sold today will still be on the road in 2045. A 2035 ban on new gas vehicle sales does not remove any existing car; it shapes the fleet that will dominate emissions in the 2040s and 2050s — exactly the decade when the remaining carbon budget closes.”

“Battery costs have fallen from $1,100 per kilowatt-hour in 2010 to under $100 in 2024, a 90% reduction in 14 years. At current trajectories, EVs will be cheaper to purchase and operate than gas vehicles by 2030 without any mandate. The ban does not force consumers to buy more expensive cars; it aligns the regulatory endpoint with a market transition already underway.”

“The average EV price in 2024 remains above $50,000, and the federal tax credit reaches fewer than half of buyers due to income caps and vehicle price limits. Rural Americans drive longer distances, cannot charge at home in rented apartments, and live far from public charging networks. A mandate that works for urban professionals is effectively a prohibition on affordable transportation for everyone else.”

“Mining the lithium, cobalt, and manganese required for EV batteries produces significant environmental harm in Chile, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Indonesia — water table destruction, worker exploitation, community displacement. Replacing tailpipe emissions with mining emissions in other countries does not solve the global problem; it relocates it.”

The debate format

Follow each side’s case through questions, rebuttals and closing statements.

  1. 4 min

    Opening Argument

    PRO · opening case

  2. 4 min

    Cross-Examination

    CON questions PRO

  3. 4 min

    Opening Argument

    CON · opening case

  4. 4 min

    Cross-Examination

    PRO questions CON

  5. 3 min

    Rebuttal

    PRO

  6. 3 min

    Rebuttal

    CON

  7. 3 min

    Closing Statement

    PRO · final case

  8. 3 min

    Closing Statement

    CON · final case

  9. —

    Audience Vote

    You pick the winner

Get debate updates

Leave your email for announcements about this debate.

Debate schedule

Thursday, December 3, 2026 · 7:00 PM EST

Get Involved

Open debate runs on the people who show up. Tell us how you want to be part of it.

I want to…

No spam. We'll only reach out about what you picked.

More Debates

Structured debates on the ideas that matter most. You score who makes the stronger case.

Featured

Should the Four-Day Work Week Become Standard?

October 26, 2026, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM EDT
Online
View event
Featured

Should Supreme Court Justices Have Term Limits?

November 2, 2026, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM EST
Online
View event
Featured

Should Race-Conscious College Admissions Be Restored?

November 4, 2026, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM EST
Online
View event
Featured

Should Organ Donation Be Automatic Unless You Opt Out?

November 9, 2026, 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM EST
Online
View event