4 ms·

Taking a step back from the fact that this is "Green energy", and all the usual virtue signaling associated with it nowadays. From a pure economic point of vie

Taking a step back from the fact that this is "Green energy", and all the usual virtue signaling associated with it nowadays. From a pure economic point of view, this is literally tax-money that will help the top 10% buy EVs more easily (because the other 90% cannot afford anything else than traditional vehicles). It is literally subsidizing a lifestyle on Tax Money. If this made sense economically, people would buy EVs without the need for state and federal subsidies.

gregable 8y ago
Read the article. This isn't going towards buying EVs, it's going towards installing a public network of charging stations. Wealthy or not, you won't buy an EV if you can't charge it. It also explicitly places an emphasis on placing stations in disadvantaged communities, and focuses on heavy duty vehicles including buses. This is not primarily putting in Tesla charging stations.
- ironjunkie 8y ago
  I read the article, thanks. How is this any different? Does the government subsidize the installation of Gas station at every corner on tax-money? The point I'm making is that I would like to see EVs succeeding without the need for the governement to step in. With the governement stepping in, they are essentially giving free money to people that don't need it in the first place.
- en4bz 8y ago
  Nope. That's 137M going directly to home owners. > San Diego Gas & Electric Co. will provide rebates for as many as 60,000 customers to install home charging stations and offer installation services, for a total of $136.9 million.
llukas 8y ago
If all externalities of traditional vehicles would be captured in their price you'd be right.
- ironjunkie 8y ago
  You make a good point on this. And this is why in a lot of countries Gas and taxes on car are way higher than in the US, to account for the invisible cost of global pollution.
dguaraglia 8y ago
Aaaaand... you lost me at "virtue signaling". You make a pretty solid point, but the smug right-wing terminology hurts it, because now I know you have a bias and might be against this on principle, rather than because of the point you are trying to make. Using "virtue signaling" is the "virtue signaling" of the right.
- ironjunkie 8y ago
  Would you support the same tax bill if it was subsidizing something less hype such as... nuclear energy? The wording "virtue signaling" is indeed not the best in this context, but what I was trying to say is that because green energy is so hyped right now, this bill is riding on that positive wave to the point where the economical hard questions that should be asked for any government subsidies are not always asked correctly (or overlooked more easily).
  - dguaraglia 8y ago
    > Would you support the same tax bill if it was subsidizing something less hype such as... nuclear energy? Absolutely! Anything that'd move us a step away from oil and it's constant cost in human life would be a step in the right direction. > what I was trying to say is that because green energy is so hyped right now... To be fair, green energy is hyped right now because it's one of the fastest growing job sectors. There's a reason China is betting big on it. California is trying to ride that wave (or rather, stay on that wave) and see how far it'll take us. Tesla alone employs some ~30k people, while the whole coal industry in the US employs ~50k. Why wouldn't California want to encourage companies looking to build "green energy" solutions to bring their job openings here? Like everything else, this is a bet. I guess we'll know whether it pays off in a few years.
intopieces 8y ago
And those EVs will enter the second hand market in 3-5 years, and the 10% will buy a different EV.

gregable 8y ago

Read the article. This isn't going towards buying EVs, it's going towards installing a public network of charging stations. Wealthy or not, you won't buy an EV if you can't charge it. It also explicitly places an emphasis on placing stations in disadvantaged communities, and focuses on heavy duty vehicles including buses. This is not primarily putting in Tesla charging stations.

ironjunkie 8y ago
I read the article, thanks. How is this any different? Does the government subsidize the installation of Gas station at every corner on tax-money? The point I'm making is that I would like to see EVs succeeding without the need for the governement to step in. With the governement stepping in, they are essentially giving free money to people that don't need it in the first place.
en4bz 8y ago
Nope. That's 137M going directly to home owners. > San Diego Gas & Electric Co. will provide rebates for as many as 60,000 customers to install home charging stations and offer installation services, for a total of $136.9 million.

llukas 8y ago

If all externalities of traditional vehicles would be captured in their price you'd be right.

ironjunkie 8y ago
You make a good point on this. And this is why in a lot of countries Gas and taxes on car are way higher than in the US, to account for the invisible cost of global pollution.

dguaraglia 8y ago

Aaaaand... you lost me at "virtue signaling". You make a pretty solid point, but the smug right-wing terminology hurts it, because now I know you have a bias and might be against this on principle, rather than because of the point you are trying to make. Using "virtue signaling" is the "virtue signaling" of the right.

ironjunkie 8y ago
Would you support the same tax bill if it was subsidizing something less hype such as... nuclear energy? The wording "virtue signaling" is indeed not the best in this context, but what I was trying to say is that because green energy is so hyped right now, this bill is riding on that positive wave to the point where the economical hard questions that should be asked for any government subsidies are not always asked correctly (or overlooked more easily).
- dguaraglia 8y ago
  > Would you support the same tax bill if it was subsidizing something less hype such as... nuclear energy? Absolutely! Anything that'd move us a step away from oil and it's constant cost in human life would be a step in the right direction. > what I was trying to say is that because green energy is so hyped right now... To be fair, green energy is hyped right now because it's one of the fastest growing job sectors. There's a reason China is betting big on it. California is trying to ride that wave (or rather, stay on that wave) and see how far it'll take us. Tesla alone employs some ~30k people, while the whole coal industry in the US employs ~50k. Why wouldn't California want to encourage companies looking to build "green energy" solutions to bring their job openings here? Like everything else, this is a bet. I guess we'll know whether it pays off in a few years.

intopieces 8y ago

And those EVs will enter the second hand market in 3-5 years, and the 10% will buy a different EV.