4 ms·
> And we are still missing massive pieces of infrastructure in order to power EVs, I'm not aware of a single place in the world that could handle all residents
by me_me_me 5y ago
> And we are still missing massive pieces of infrastructure in order to power EVs, I'm not aware of a single place in the world that could handle all residents driving around in EVs without significant infrastructure changes.
Thats a non-issue. The transition is slow and infrastructure is there to support this slow change, at least in europe city is EV friendly and it will keep improving.
> tax electric vehicles by distance in order to make up for missed tax income.
Maybe, maybe not. Less pollution means less sick people, less healthcare spending.
Plus you still have to have trucks going around. EV trucks are completely unfeasible in foreseeable future.
- lttlrck 5y agoMost of vehicle related taxation goes to maintaining transportation infrastructure. Not healthcare. https://calmatters.org/economy/2018/08/how-california-really-spends-gas-tax-dollars-dataviz/ https://calmatters.org/economy/2018/08/how-california-really... Googling around shows most states are the same and I've no doubt it's similar else where in the world. And they are very keen to replace it, and road usage charges are very possible in California and the UK https://caroadcharge.com/ https://caroadcharge.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoring_taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Future_tax_revenue_reduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoring_taxation_in_the_Unite... Besides, when did any government drop an established revenue source? Utilities have been slowly screwing solar over-generation reimbursement for years - being green doesn't protect you. I'm not sure how to interpret your last comment, I doubt offsetting the loss of taxation by increasing the taxation of freight will prove popular.