4 ms·

Seems awfully authoritarian. Give people a clean option like hydrogen fuel created by green power. Electric cars require infrastructure that even Blue states li

by erkt 3y ago

Seems awfully authoritarian. Give people a clean option like hydrogen fuel created by green power. Electric cars require infrastructure that even Blue states like California lack without serious investment. Failing to put yourself in the shoes of a small town that cannot afford to triple each homes KW capacity is a serious gap in perspective and the desire to tax people until they bend to your will may be indicative of why our country is falling apart.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wolverine876 3y ago
> Failing to put yourself in the shoes of a small town that cannot afford to triple each homes KW That sounds possible, but is it really a problem? Regardless, the OP seems to say that disinterest in EVs correlates with political alignment and not with local population. > Seems awfully authoritarian. > the desire to tax people until they bend to your will That is quite a description of the ancient, commonplace art of tax incentives and disincentives. The taxes, if implemeted correctly, actually enable people to make informed decisions. It causes the product to reflect the true cost, moving externalities (in this case, the climate change damage) into the price. In other words, it's just people paying to clean up their own mess.
- erkt 3y ago
  >That sounds possible, but is it really a problem? Yes. Level 2 Charging takes around 30-40amps. How many amps does your home have? Can your utility handle all your neighbors doubling capacity? Can you charge your car and still run your electric furnace in a blizzard? These are valid concerns. We barely have the grid capacity to handle the AC in heat waves, let alone everyone plugging in their cars at 5PM when they get home. >disinterest in EVs correlates with political alignment and not with local population. Political alignment correlates with local population. You can make an educated guess that a rural town leans red, and a city leans blue. A city will also have a more significant tax base and can afford long term infrastructure development. A small town is not in the same position. >the ancient, commonplace art of tax incentives and disincentives. And they have often been called authoritarian when they are excised without adequate representation. >The taxes, if implemented correctly, actually enable people to make informed decisions. My concern is that things aren't being implemented correctly. That the regulations and tax incentives and disincentives make lots of sense for people in one position and not a lot of sense for people in different positions. I think we are ignoring the plight of people in rural communities and failing to recognize that there are immense hurdles for even dense cities. Poor people do not get to buy new cars. They certainly do not get the benefits of subsidized purchase prices. If anything you have poor people subsiding the luxury purchases of wealthy people. In other words its forcing society to collective clean up the messes of people who can already afford to clean up their own messes. New cars become used cars, but if the battery needs to be replaced then you are talking about a cost resembling another car. As someone who believes in climate change, who is under no illusion that we are having massive species loss, why are we all so convinced this means our own extinction? Most of the species that lived on this planet are not captured in the fossil record. The globe was covered in ice 10,000 years ago and life still exists today. If in a hundred years the world is a Jurassic tropical climate, why are we so convinced that this is existential? Species will adapt and survive and evolve. Some won't. C'est la vie. Besides eventually we will figure out that pesticides have had a far greater impact on species loss than a little bit of rough weather.

by erkt 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

wolverine876 3y ago

> Failing to put yourself in the shoes of a small town that cannot afford to triple each homes KW That sounds possible, but is it really a problem? Regardless, the OP seems to say that disinterest in EVs correlates with political alignment and not with local population. > Seems awfully authoritarian. > the desire to tax people until they bend to your will That is quite a description of the ancient, commonplace art of tax incentives and disincentives. The taxes, if implemeted correctly, actually enable people to make informed decisions. It causes the product to reflect the true cost, moving externalities (in this case, the climate change damage) into the price. In other words, it's just people paying to clean up their own mess.

erkt 3y ago
>That sounds possible, but is it really a problem? Yes. Level 2 Charging takes around 30-40amps. How many amps does your home have? Can your utility handle all your neighbors doubling capacity? Can you charge your car and still run your electric furnace in a blizzard? These are valid concerns. We barely have the grid capacity to handle the AC in heat waves, let alone everyone plugging in their cars at 5PM when they get home. >disinterest in EVs correlates with political alignment and not with local population. Political alignment correlates with local population. You can make an educated guess that a rural town leans red, and a city leans blue. A city will also have a more significant tax base and can afford long term infrastructure development. A small town is not in the same position. >the ancient, commonplace art of tax incentives and disincentives. And they have often been called authoritarian when they are excised without adequate representation. >The taxes, if implemented correctly, actually enable people to make informed decisions. My concern is that things aren't being implemented correctly. That the regulations and tax incentives and disincentives make lots of sense for people in one position and not a lot of sense for people in different positions. I think we are ignoring the plight of people in rural communities and failing to recognize that there are immense hurdles for even dense cities. Poor people do not get to buy new cars. They certainly do not get the benefits of subsidized purchase prices. If anything you have poor people subsiding the luxury purchases of wealthy people. In other words its forcing society to collective clean up the messes of people who can already afford to clean up their own messes. New cars become used cars, but if the battery needs to be replaced then you are talking about a cost resembling another car. As someone who believes in climate change, who is under no illusion that we are having massive species loss, why are we all so convinced this means our own extinction? Most of the species that lived on this planet are not captured in the fossil record. The globe was covered in ice 10,000 years ago and life still exists today. If in a hundred years the world is a Jurassic tropical climate, why are we so convinced that this is existential? Species will adapt and survive and evolve. Some won't. C'est la vie. Besides eventually we will figure out that pesticides have had a far greater impact on species loss than a little bit of rough weather.