3 ms·

They are very aggressive especially for some countries in at the end of the tail in Europe where people struggle financially and this will just put more strain

They are very aggressive especially for some countries in at the end of the tail in Europe where people struggle financially and this will just put more strain on them. All the benefits we've seen so far for EVs are aimed at the people with a lot of available income, and with financial mechanisms to avoid paying taxes/tax benefits/deductions, like something as simple as owning a company and buy the EV through there - why are Teslas considered business expenses in Portugal? So again, who is this targeted at? Don't take me wrong - this is long overdue, but so it is bringing people up to allow them to comply with these reforms. Else this is just another tax to strip people of more of their income. Not only the housing market is being pressured by people with more available income with all the "new-normal" and remote trend, now we will get even more pressure from yet another tax. EU must start to realize they are walking a fine line, a lot of people are starting to be tired of being the "low cost resort/factory" of Europe.

edhelas 5y ago
People in a global warming thread: - We're not doing enough, governments should tackle this very seriously People when government are actually taking measures: - Wow those are aggressive measures
- libertine 5y ago
  No, it's about being detached from the reality, that's all. And people wonder why extremists are gaining popularity, it's like they are joking with people's livelihoods. In case you didn't notice, it's going to be those who can't afford EVs that will pay these taxes. If people are already struggling to find where they will live, why would they prioritize how they get around? It's absurd. Let's tax electricity because people don't have brand new houses with proper isolation, that'll show them to not live in crappy houses. How dare they, right?
adrianN 5y ago
Those concern should indeed be taken seriously, which is why many people propose a carbon dividend paired with a carbon price. Poor people emit less carbon dioxide, so a scheme where a median emitter ends up with ca. 0 extra costs would be a net benefit for the poorest 50%.
- libertine 5y ago
  That seems like a good proposal, but it should have been considered from the start to get people onboard: not scaring them into thinking they'll end up just paying more. I'm not saying there's an easy solution, but it does seem like they're doing this upside down, and it will create nothing but resentment, anxiety and stress. This must not be a burden on people who can't afford it, even if they are a major part of the problem. Make it cheaper to get a new EV, then to buy a second hand diesel car -> that's how you will fix the issue, and it's not by making diesel and diesel cars even more expensive.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    Yeah, the idea is hardly new. It's at least twenty years old. At this point I'm cynical enough to entertain the thought that politicians actively want carbon pricing to fail so they set up in ways that will maximize the bad effects for the voters while minimizing the bad effects for the biggest polluters.
- Glavnokoman 5y ago
  Really? Paying to people for doing harm but less than their neighbors? That's ridiculous.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    Everybody emitting less than their neighbors is a differential equation where you end up with everybody emitting negative infinity carbon dioxide. That seems like a fine result.

edhelas 5y ago

People in a global warming thread: - We're not doing enough, governments should tackle this very seriously People when government are actually taking measures: - Wow those are aggressive measures

libertine 5y ago
No, it's about being detached from the reality, that's all. And people wonder why extremists are gaining popularity, it's like they are joking with people's livelihoods. In case you didn't notice, it's going to be those who can't afford EVs that will pay these taxes. If people are already struggling to find where they will live, why would they prioritize how they get around? It's absurd. Let's tax electricity because people don't have brand new houses with proper isolation, that'll show them to not live in crappy houses. How dare they, right?

adrianN 5y ago

Those concern should indeed be taken seriously, which is why many people propose a carbon dividend paired with a carbon price. Poor people emit less carbon dioxide, so a scheme where a median emitter ends up with ca. 0 extra costs would be a net benefit for the poorest 50%.

libertine 5y ago
That seems like a good proposal, but it should have been considered from the start to get people onboard: not scaring them into thinking they'll end up just paying more. I'm not saying there's an easy solution, but it does seem like they're doing this upside down, and it will create nothing but resentment, anxiety and stress. This must not be a burden on people who can't afford it, even if they are a major part of the problem. Make it cheaper to get a new EV, then to buy a second hand diesel car -> that's how you will fix the issue, and it's not by making diesel and diesel cars even more expensive.
- adrianN 5y ago
  Yeah, the idea is hardly new. It's at least twenty years old. At this point I'm cynical enough to entertain the thought that politicians actively want carbon pricing to fail so they set up in ways that will maximize the bad effects for the voters while minimizing the bad effects for the biggest polluters.
Glavnokoman 5y ago
Really? Paying to people for doing harm but less than their neighbors? That's ridiculous.
- adrianN 5y ago
  Everybody emitting less than their neighbors is a differential equation where you end up with everybody emitting negative infinity carbon dioxide. That seems like a fine result.