4 ms·
It’s exactly as absurd as the alternative legislation to “phase out” (what a bizarre turn of phrase) ICE vehicles. And I say this as an EV owner. The concept o
by zaroth 4y ago
It’s exactly as absurd as the alternative legislation to “phase out” (what a bizarre turn of phrase) ICE vehicles. And I say this as an EV owner.
The concept of banning one tech or another in this way is backwards thinking and stems from ignorance of the power and beauty of market economics.
People (in the aggregate) will buy the products that work best for them at the price they can afford.
Now it’s true those products often have externalities, sometimes even directly harmful to the people that are buying them! (e.g. fast food)
Except in the gravest product safety sense, these products should be left to compete with each other in the great world marketplace.
The aim of government should be to subsidize the innovations that make products with the best externalities safer, cleaner, faster, better, cheaper, etc. to the point where they can stand alone and win in the open market.
In the case of EVs, what we need is not bans on ICE vehicles in some ever closer looming date. What we’ll need is massive infrastructure improvements to support the intrinsic demand for the truly better/cheaper/faster/safer product.
The initial round of subsidies have more than achieved the boost up the learning curve to make these products ultra competitive.
We are rapidly approaching the point where the only reason someone wouldn’t by an EV is because either it’s truly inappropriate for their use case (see: plows in NYC) or they simply don’t have a convenient way to charge it.
- whydoyoucare 4y agoOr they don't wish to buy an EV. The choice should remain. Someone supporting a ban on gas vehicles because it is harmful to the environment, should also be ready to support similar bans on cigarettes, alcohol and fast food, because they are directly harmful to us.
- ElfinTrousers 4y agoThe difference is that your consumption of fast food and liquor doesn't hurt anyone else. Secondhand cigarette smoke does, and guess what, that's exactly why there's laws against smoking inside so many places now. Similarly, I don't care for you using my air for a garbage dump for the waste products from your car.
- ElfinTrousers 4y agoYou seem to be under the impression that humans are rational, Homo economicus types. This is...simply not the case. To say the least.
- thefaux 4y ago> The concept of banning one tech or another in this way is backwards thinking and stems from ignorance of the power and beauty of market economics. This is a one-sided view of markets. One can both recognize the power of the market which can be a force for both great good and extreme evil. You may be right that banning extant technology is not the best approach to dealing with the failings of government and the market (which cannot ever be cleanly separated) but that doesn't mean that it is backward thinking to consider that perhaps we might be better off if we eliminated or transitioned to a different technology.
- TheCoelacanth 4y agoThere shouldn't be a ban on ICE vehicles; there should just be a ban on emitting waste products into the air from vehicles. If you can figure out a way to use ICE cars without blasting me with air pollution, then by all means keep using them.