4 ms·

If EVs were so great, they wouldn't have to force their use or ban what people really want to buy. This is more coastal elites sticking it to everyone else.

spywaregorilla 4y ago
What if consumers don't factor in externalities when they choose what to buy that negatively affect the public interest?
- tomohawk 4y ago
  What if politicians aren't super geniuses and don't factor in what people actually need? What if politicians are bought off by corporations, and what the corps are selling isn't really to the benefit of everyone? What if politicians choose the wrong tech?
  - danny_codes 4y ago
    I mean EVs are the wrong tech. The right tech is walking. And possibly biking. Trains and busses fill in longer trips. However, GM already screwed us over on the car thing, so I'll take EVs over getting emissions dumped directly into my face by a dodge challenger.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    My argument showed why your argument that "capitalism would achieve this outcome if it were good" is not true in the general case without any specifics. Your argument here suggests "politicians may not make good decisions or even purposefully make bad ones" which is true, but is completely irrelevant to what I said. Your original premise is still wrong. Now you're basically reduced to saying you personally don't like EVs. Which is fine.
stirfish 4y ago
If [asbestos-free insulation/unleaded gasoline/flame-retardant bedding] is so great, they wouldn't have to force its use or ban what people really want to buy. This is more coastal elites sticking it to everyone else.
- linksnapzz 4y ago
  If leaded gas is the only way you can make a high compression engine run, you use it. If being lined with asbestos is the best way to make something fireproof, you use asbestos. Combustion engines are still optimal for many use-cases-but CA Central Planning doesn't care about anyone who needs them.
jwalton 4y ago
If you had to pay the $200/ton ti remove the roughly 5 tons of CO2 your car produces every year, you’d probably want an electric car pretty quickly.
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  The average new car is like $40,000. If people had to pay an extra $4-5k (4 year car loan) vs buying an equivalent EV that costs an extra $10-15k people would still choose the gas option.
  - jwalton 4y ago
    Most cars last quite a bit longer than 4 years. If the carbon cost was baked into the initial purchase price of the car, the EV would win by miles. Even if it wasn’t, and you only keep your cars for 4 years, you’d be paying the extra co2 removal fees forever, on every gas car you owned, not just for the first four years, and none of that cost would be capital that you’d get back when you sell the car, whereas you’d recoup quite a bit of the battery cost. What’s more, more than half the energy usage of a car is during manufacturing, so if you had to pay to remove all of that carbon from the air, both cars would start out 10-15k more expensive, and then the EV wouldn’t seem so bad.

spywaregorilla 4y ago

What if consumers don't factor in externalities when they choose what to buy that negatively affect the public interest?

tomohawk 4y ago
What if politicians aren't super geniuses and don't factor in what people actually need? What if politicians are bought off by corporations, and what the corps are selling isn't really to the benefit of everyone? What if politicians choose the wrong tech?
- danny_codes 4y ago
  I mean EVs are the wrong tech. The right tech is walking. And possibly biking. Trains and busses fill in longer trips. However, GM already screwed us over on the car thing, so I'll take EVs over getting emissions dumped directly into my face by a dodge challenger.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  My argument showed why your argument that "capitalism would achieve this outcome if it were good" is not true in the general case without any specifics. Your argument here suggests "politicians may not make good decisions or even purposefully make bad ones" which is true, but is completely irrelevant to what I said. Your original premise is still wrong. Now you're basically reduced to saying you personally don't like EVs. Which is fine.

stirfish 4y ago

If [asbestos-free insulation/unleaded gasoline/flame-retardant bedding] is so great, they wouldn't have to force its use or ban what people really want to buy. This is more coastal elites sticking it to everyone else.

linksnapzz 4y ago
If leaded gas is the only way you can make a high compression engine run, you use it. If being lined with asbestos is the best way to make something fireproof, you use asbestos. Combustion engines are still optimal for many use-cases-but CA Central Planning doesn't care about anyone who needs them.

jwalton 4y ago

If you had to pay the $200/ton ti remove the roughly 5 tons of CO2 your car produces every year, you’d probably want an electric car pretty quickly.

oceanplexian 4y ago
The average new car is like $40,000. If people had to pay an extra $4-5k (4 year car loan) vs buying an equivalent EV that costs an extra $10-15k people would still choose the gas option.
- jwalton 4y ago
  Most cars last quite a bit longer than 4 years. If the carbon cost was baked into the initial purchase price of the car, the EV would win by miles. Even if it wasn’t, and you only keep your cars for 4 years, you’d be paying the extra co2 removal fees forever, on every gas car you owned, not just for the first four years, and none of that cost would be capital that you’d get back when you sell the car, whereas you’d recoup quite a bit of the battery cost. What’s more, more than half the energy usage of a car is during manufacturing, so if you had to pay to remove all of that carbon from the air, both cars would start out 10-15k more expensive, and then the EV wouldn’t seem so bad.