3 ms·
The main point is the ineffective distribution of capital because of the 5x difference between advertised and real gas usage. The same capital would probably be
by xiphias2 4y ago
The main point is the ineffective distribution of capital because of the 5x difference between advertised and real gas usage. The same capital would probably be better allocated on only BEV subsidies.
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/fs-real-world-phev-use-jun22.pdf https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/fs-real-world...
- danaris 4y agoI mean, I wouldn't at all object to shifting faster to full-electric vehicles, and getting rid of both full-ICE and hybrids. But it seems to me that this is a bit of a nitpick, given the degree to which fossil fuels are still subsidized (according to [0], it was about $20B/yr in 2019 for the US). I'm having a hard time quickly coming up with numbers as to federal subsidies for hybrid and full-electric vehicles for comparison (best I could find quickly was [1], which indicates about $7.5B allocated for building out EV charging infrastructure). Personally, I doubt that hybrid vehicle subsidies come anywhere close to that $20B/yr, though I'd be happy to be proven wrong...and even if they are comparable, it still seems like a silly kind of self-sabotage to be calling for cannibalizing hybrid subsidies to give to EVs when fossil fuels are still getting that much. [0] https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subs... [1] https://www.transportation.gov/rural/ev/toolkit/ev-infrastructure-funding-and-financing/federal-funding-programs https://www.transportation.gov/rural/ev/toolkit/ev-infrastru...