> Calling that a "discount for causing pollution" when their cost is increased by a need to reduce pollution is absurd. What if the added costs to ICE vehicles

> Calling that a "discount for causing pollution" when their cost is increased by a need to reduce pollution is absurd. What if the added costs to ICE vehicles are less than the environmental costs they incur? I'm not saying that's definitely the case or not, but just because ICEs spend money on mitigation doesn't mean they are not still getting a subsidy. You are acting like it is obviously wrong because ICEs do some things to mitigate pollution, which is clearly not obvious.