4 ms·

It's better assigning costs, but still bad. A carbon tax is really the only way that works. Society subsidized $10k on a Tesla purchase for someone to commute

It's better assigning costs, but still bad. A carbon tax is really the only way that works. Society subsidized $10k on a Tesla purchase for someone to commute to work, but offered no incentive to take public transport, carpool or work remotely. It's a shame that it's such a hard sell politically.

benj111 7y ago
True, but don't let good be the enemy of perfect. For a potential car buyer, this is a good incentive to steer them towards better choices. Btw, it isn't society subsidising Tesla, its GM and Fiat Crysler customers. Or are you talking about tax credits? Perhaps? But on the other hand they were still paying more than what an equivalent ICE car would cost, so it isn't a free ride for them either. In the end society hopefully gets a sustainable EV industry, at a lower cost than if the government had done it themselves, isn't that what we should be comparing it against?
- xienze 7y ago
  > Btw, it isn't society subsidising Tesla It isn't? Who paid for that $7500 tax credit?
  - benj111 7y ago
    "Btw, it isn't society subsidising Tesla, its GM and Fiat Crysler customers. Or are you talking about tax credits?"
    - xienze 7y ago
      You edited the comment, only the first sentence was there when I responded.
      - benj111 7y ago
        My comment hasn't been edited.
- reitzensteinm 7y ago
  It is society subsidizing Tesla, because the negative externalities of GM and Fiat customers are both borne by everyone, but the transfer payments in compensation are paid to Tesla, not society as a whole. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, and if we can't get a carbon tax I'll take what I can get. But let's call a spade a spade. I do think we are missing out in a big way by not tipping the balance of hybrid TCO (eg a Camry) from slightly above to slightly below their equivalent models. Even a small tax could do that and it would make a much bigger difference than EVs have to date (but of course not in the long run).
  - shawnz 7y ago
    > the negative externalities of GM and Fiat customers are both borne by everyone, but the transfer payments in compensation are paid to Tesla, not society as a whole If the transfer payments mean Teslas become cheaper or more available, and therefore more people drive EVs, wouldn't that negate the negative externalities of using petrol vehicles?
    - reitzensteinm 7y ago
      It just reduces the negative externalities; the result of ZEV credits is a pool of cars, some ICE and some EV, that in total have reduced emissions compared to if all of the cars were ICE. But they still have significant emissions, and society isn't being compensated for them. It's better than doing nothing, but that's about all the praise I'll give it!
  - benj111 7y ago
    "It is society subsidizing Tesla, because the negative externalities of GM and Fiat customers are both borne by everyone" Could you not then argue that Tesla owners are subsidising everyone else by bearing of lowering emissions which benefits everyone else?
- lmm 7y ago
  > For a potential car buyer, this is a good incentive to steer them towards better choices. Talking about a "potential car buyer" is assuming your conclusion. If the outcome is going to be a car then you're steering them in the right direction. But you're also steering them away from non-car choices that would likely be better for society. > Or are you talking about tax credits? Perhaps? But on the other hand they were still paying more than what an equivalent ICE car would cost, so it isn't a free ride for them either. It is a free ride - taxpayers subsidize them buying a personal car, whatever their personal motivations for that choice were. And it's disproportionately the well-off who benefit. > In the end society hopefully gets a sustainable EV industry, at a lower cost than if the government had done it themselves, isn't that what we should be comparing it against? It is essentially the government doing it themselves - ultimately public money is being pumped into these EV companies in the same way as if they were a part-nationalised industry, with all the problems that that implies. The goal shouldn't be electric cars, the goal should be pollution reduction - imagine putting the same amount of subsidy towards e.g. bicycles for poorer inner-city residents.
  - benj111 7y ago
    "It is a free ride - taxpayers subsidize them buying a personal car" But they're being subsidised to buy a more expensive car. The aim is to bring it in line with other more expensive cars. It isn't $10000 off the default option, it's $10000 off the better for society option to bring it more in line with the default option. If it works as intended the buyer doesn't save money. I suppose you could structure it to favour those with lower incomes, it would be more costly, more complicated, and I'm not sure how you could get to a sustainable model as quickly. Poorer people would presumably want cheaper cars, but currently EVs are expensive, so you would need to subsidise them that much longer, and potentially right about now you'd have cross subsidy anyway, with rich buyers buying expensive cars with R&D paid for with government subsidy money. We can talk about alternatives to car, that isn't where politics is at, and I'm not sure tax credits would be a particularly good tool for encouraging alternatives. As I said don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
    - lmm 7y ago

benj111 7y ago

True, but don't let good be the enemy of perfect. For a potential car buyer, this is a good incentive to steer them towards better choices. Btw, it isn't society subsidising Tesla, its GM and Fiat Crysler customers. Or are you talking about tax credits? Perhaps? But on the other hand they were still paying more than what an equivalent ICE car would cost, so it isn't a free ride for them either. In the end society hopefully gets a sustainable EV industry, at a lower cost than if the government had done it themselves, isn't that what we should be comparing it against?

xienze 7y ago
> Btw, it isn't society subsidising Tesla It isn't? Who paid for that $7500 tax credit?
- benj111 7y ago
  "Btw, it isn't society subsidising Tesla, its GM and Fiat Crysler customers. Or are you talking about tax credits?"
  - xienze 7y ago
    You edited the comment, only the first sentence was there when I responded.
    - benj111 7y ago
      My comment hasn't been edited.
reitzensteinm 7y ago
It is society subsidizing Tesla, because the negative externalities of GM and Fiat customers are both borne by everyone, but the transfer payments in compensation are paid to Tesla, not society as a whole. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, and if we can't get a carbon tax I'll take what I can get. But let's call a spade a spade. I do think we are missing out in a big way by not tipping the balance of hybrid TCO (eg a Camry) from slightly above to slightly below their equivalent models. Even a small tax could do that and it would make a much bigger difference than EVs have to date (but of course not in the long run).
- shawnz 7y ago
  > the negative externalities of GM and Fiat customers are both borne by everyone, but the transfer payments in compensation are paid to Tesla, not society as a whole If the transfer payments mean Teslas become cheaper or more available, and therefore more people drive EVs, wouldn't that negate the negative externalities of using petrol vehicles?
  - reitzensteinm 7y ago
    It just reduces the negative externalities; the result of ZEV credits is a pool of cars, some ICE and some EV, that in total have reduced emissions compared to if all of the cars were ICE. But they still have significant emissions, and society isn't being compensated for them. It's better than doing nothing, but that's about all the praise I'll give it!
- benj111 7y ago
  "It is society subsidizing Tesla, because the negative externalities of GM and Fiat customers are both borne by everyone" Could you not then argue that Tesla owners are subsidising everyone else by bearing of lowering emissions which benefits everyone else?
lmm 7y ago
> For a potential car buyer, this is a good incentive to steer them towards better choices. Talking about a "potential car buyer" is assuming your conclusion. If the outcome is going to be a car then you're steering them in the right direction. But you're also steering them away from non-car choices that would likely be better for society. > Or are you talking about tax credits? Perhaps? But on the other hand they were still paying more than what an equivalent ICE car would cost, so it isn't a free ride for them either. It is a free ride - taxpayers subsidize them buying a personal car, whatever their personal motivations for that choice were. And it's disproportionately the well-off who benefit. > In the end society hopefully gets a sustainable EV industry, at a lower cost than if the government had done it themselves, isn't that what we should be comparing it against? It is essentially the government doing it themselves - ultimately public money is being pumped into these EV companies in the same way as if they were a part-nationalised industry, with all the problems that that implies. The goal shouldn't be electric cars, the goal should be pollution reduction - imagine putting the same amount of subsidy towards e.g. bicycles for poorer inner-city residents.
- benj111 7y ago
  "It is a free ride - taxpayers subsidize them buying a personal car" But they're being subsidised to buy a more expensive car. The aim is to bring it in line with other more expensive cars. It isn't $10000 off the default option, it's $10000 off the better for society option to bring it more in line with the default option. If it works as intended the buyer doesn't save money. I suppose you could structure it to favour those with lower incomes, it would be more costly, more complicated, and I'm not sure how you could get to a sustainable model as quickly. Poorer people would presumably want cheaper cars, but currently EVs are expensive, so you would need to subsidise them that much longer, and potentially right about now you'd have cross subsidy anyway, with rich buyers buying expensive cars with R&D paid for with government subsidy money. We can talk about alternatives to car, that isn't where politics is at, and I'm not sure tax credits would be a particularly good tool for encouraging alternatives. As I said don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
  - lmm 7y ago