4 ms·
> Where’s the inconvenience? I don't want to buy a new electric car. I have a perfectly working petrol car. Why should I subsidize some rich guy's fancy new el
by perryizgr8 5y ago
> Where’s the inconvenience?
I don't want to buy a new electric car. I have a perfectly working petrol car. Why should I subsidize some rich guy's fancy new electric toy?
- wk_end 5y agoBecause the rest of us are subsidizing the externality of the destruction your petrol car is wreaking on the environment. ...also, given that you're calling it a "petrol" car - a Briticism - do you even live in the US? If not, you won't be the one subsidizing it in case this bill comes to pass anyway.
- hnlmorg 5y ago> also, given that you're calling it a "petrol" car - a Briticism "Petrol" is the more common term. If anything, "gasoline" is an Americanism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Etymology > In most Commonwealth countries, the product is called "petrol", rather than "gasoline" > The use of the word gasoline instead of petrol is uncommon outside North America,
- perryizgr8 5y agoI don't live in the US, but I will still be subsidizing it. I work for an American corp. If the customers and owners of the company are paying more tax to Uncle Sam, they're gonna be paying less salary to me.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- turbinerneiter 5y agoI don't even have a car, why should I subsizide someone elses? They should just not have a car, like me. If that doesn't work where they live, the move to somewhere where it works, and pay absurd rents, like I do. I'm not strictly against the subsizidies, but they have sever social justice implications.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dillondoyle 5y agoI can't tell if this is a joke comment...
- ZeroGravitas 5y agoEV subsidies seem to be set at roughly the amount the country will save in various related costs, health from pollution, importing oil, carbon abatement, supporting green grids etc. I'm not sure if thats a coincidence or not, but either way it massively shifts the impact from being benefit to rich person in new EV car to poor person outside EV (or any) car.
- fighterpilot 5y agoTaxing carbon has justification. Subsidizing EVs does not. If I walk and bike everywhere, I shouldn't be funding someone's EV, which has its own externalities above and beyond my bike related to lithium mining and manufacturing and the grid not being fully renewable and taking up more space on public roads. They should be giving me money instead.
- CapitalistCartr 5y agoBecause we all, including you, still live on this planet. We need more people, lots more, to switch their purchase to electric vehicles. We all need this.
- fighterpilot 5y agoWe need everyone to stop using ICE vehicles, which is distinct to needing everyone to switch to EVs. That distinction is the reason why EV subsidies are so much worse than a carbon or ICE tax. A subsidy leads to pathologies like bike owners giving money to EV owners when that arrow should be flipped. I don't need an EV (or any car), but now I'm artificially incentivized to get one and will actually increase pollution when I otherwise wouldn't have.
- ZeroGravitas 5y agoThats fine though, you're an outlier (I am too). But general action on climate change is good for people who cycle and use public transport and want to live in livable cities, so its all good. No need to stress over a minor political compromise on the way there. Just enjoy the cleaner air the next time you are out cycling.
- harimau777 5y agoWhile bikes, walking, and public transportation are great in cities, for much of the United States those are not viable options.
- fighterpilot 5y ago