Like I said, I would be very proud to own a Tesla, and to have resources to send funds towards renewable energy resources. However, while that is great to be ab

Like I said, I would be very proud to own a Tesla, and to have resources to send funds towards renewable energy resources. However, while that is great to be able to make those purchases, let's not conflate 2 separate economic choices. I can obviously buy renewable energy certificates without buying an electric car, and I can buy an electric car without buying RECs. The question I posed was: should we get more renewable energy on the grid before forcing EVs onto the market? That is in the context of the article which discusses government influencing public policy -- if made those aforementioned individual choices that's great, I think well of you for doing that. > I'm also unsure what you mean by "pressure the car makers out of economic equilibrium"? No worries. Here is the Wikipedia definition: > In economics, economic equilibrium is a state where economic forces such as supply and demand are balanced and in the absence of external influences the values of economic variables will not change So take that and put it in the context of the article. From the article: > The government in Berlin fears that German automobile companies are lagging behind as electric cars pick up speed around the world > The Chancellery and the Economics Ministry have spent years trying to persuade German manufacturers to establish their own joint battery-cell manufacturing facility. Does that make sense? Since the German car manufacturers are for-profit corporations who exist to make profit, their profit-maximizing strategy is to produce at market equilibrium the products which consumers demand. What the article discusses is that they are "lagging behind." You should place your null hypothesis on their products as responding to market forces, not that successful corporations do not produce what their markets demand. You bring up negative externalities, which are a prudent factor to account for, and is a reason why free markets don't always lead to optimal outcomes. So that's a perfect example of a reason to have a government which can effectively regulate, if you care about human welfare and economic prosperity. In this case, is it the right call for the government to force electric cars into the market? There are pros and cons, and it depends on a number of given factors. If our effort is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, do we produce less or more by switching to electric cars? It's a complex question, but if renewable energy production remains constant, the increased load on the grid will come from fossil fuels, so the answer could actually be more. Counter intiuitive, but generating and transmitting electricity over the grid and storing it in relatively very heavy batteries that most be moved with the vehicle all create inefficiencies. It's not such a simple yes or no question, either. Like you pointed out, residents of LA and SF may wish to effectively relocate their pollution from their respective urban centers to remote areas where energy generation occurs, and that appears to make sense: less people live in remote areas.