4 ms·

I mean, maybe it should continue, but aren't we forgetting that this isn't the first time the EV tax credit went away? At one time, it only applied to the firs

by floxy 1y ago

I mean, maybe it should continue, but aren't we forgetting that this isn't the first time the EV tax credit went away? At one time, it only applied to the first 200,000 EVs that a company produced. https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/12/17563908/tesla-federal-tax-credit-ending-date https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/12/17563908/tesla-federal-ta... If nothing else, at least we can appreciate less-hyperbolic approach to "news" back in 2018... >But the credit was never meant to be permanent, and so a phase-out plan was drawn up, which would be triggered when an automaker delivered the 200,000th eligible car. Tesla is now the first to hit this mark. GM is close, too, while Nissan, Ford, and others still have a ways to go.

toomuchtodo 1y ago
Do you believe in climate change? How fast should we try to mitigate it? Rapid EV deployment pays dividends not only in cleaner air and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, but also energy security and a reduction of transportation costs at scale. China knows this, they are smart. The US? Not so smart.
- robocat 1y ago
  The incentives/disincentives have to match the emissions. Cheaper new cars through EV purchase incentives often don't reduce emissions. An purchase incentive which makes a second car cheap is worse for the environment. Incentives need to help encourage low emission mileage. An aligned incentive could be to increase taxes on petroleum products.
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    > An aligned incentive could be to increase taxes on petroleum products. There is no political will for a carbon tax. A solution that is politically impossible is not a solution. https://epic.uchicago.edu/insights/2024-poll-americans-views-on-climate-change-and-policy-in-12-charts/ https://epic.uchicago.edu/insights/2024-poll-americans-views... https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of...
    - robocat 1y ago
      If tax credit incentives don't achieve lower emissions, then scrapping the credits is sensible. I tried to find a study on whether EVs do actually decrease total carbon emissions overall in the US. Embodied carbon, low mileage (second car?), high emission electricity generation, how profits are spent, etcetera, can peversely cause increased emissions. One figure I found was: Teslas 8,786 annual miles compared with 11,642 for gasoline cars (in their sample). In 2022, the average driver in the U.S. drove 13,596 miles. Incentivising very low mileage users with high carbon footprint manufacture would be environmentally unsound.
      - toomuchtodo 1y ago
        https://salatainstitute.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Policy-Brief_Trump-EV-Policy-Overhaul.pdf https://salatainstitute.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/... > In terms of emissions, we estimate that eliminating the EV tax credits would increase 2030 emissions by 20.3 million metric tons (mmt) vs. the 2030 baseline forecast; eliminating all the policies raises emissions by a total of 44.1 mmt.
        robocat 1y ago
        The amounts are irrelevant, so your snippet is just scare figures. What is relevant is whether the $ spent to save Y metric tons makes sense. The first line of the table on page 7 of your link shows EV Credits were going to cost 168.5 billion to save 1.0 mmt CO2 Emissions. I'm not sure why they mention 20 mmt in your snippet. I tried to find something good to compare against but I'm no expert. From looking at carbon credit prices I suspect that there are better ways to reduce CO2 if you want to spend 168500 million dollars.

by floxy 1y ago

toomuchtodo 1y ago

Do you believe in climate change? How fast should we try to mitigate it? Rapid EV deployment pays dividends not only in cleaner air and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, but also energy security and a reduction of transportation costs at scale. China knows this, they are smart. The US? Not so smart.

robocat 1y ago
The incentives/disincentives have to match the emissions. Cheaper new cars through EV purchase incentives often don't reduce emissions. An purchase incentive which makes a second car cheap is worse for the environment. Incentives need to help encourage low emission mileage. An aligned incentive could be to increase taxes on petroleum products.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  > An aligned incentive could be to increase taxes on petroleum products. There is no political will for a carbon tax. A solution that is politically impossible is not a solution. https://epic.uchicago.edu/insights/2024-poll-americans-views-on-climate-change-and-policy-in-12-charts/ https://epic.uchicago.edu/insights/2024-poll-americans-views... https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of...
  - robocat 1y ago
    If tax credit incentives don't achieve lower emissions, then scrapping the credits is sensible. I tried to find a study on whether EVs do actually decrease total carbon emissions overall in the US. Embodied carbon, low mileage (second car?), high emission electricity generation, how profits are spent, etcetera, can peversely cause increased emissions. One figure I found was: Teslas 8,786 annual miles compared with 11,642 for gasoline cars (in their sample). In 2022, the average driver in the U.S. drove 13,596 miles. Incentivising very low mileage users with high carbon footprint manufacture would be environmentally unsound.
    - toomuchtodo 1y ago
      https://salatainstitute.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Policy-Brief_Trump-EV-Policy-Overhaul.pdf https://salatainstitute.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/... > In terms of emissions, we estimate that eliminating the EV tax credits would increase 2030 emissions by 20.3 million metric tons (mmt) vs. the 2030 baseline forecast; eliminating all the policies raises emissions by a total of 44.1 mmt.
      - robocat 1y ago
        The amounts are irrelevant, so your snippet is just scare figures. What is relevant is whether the $ spent to save Y metric tons makes sense. The first line of the table on page 7 of your link shows EV Credits were going to cost 168.5 billion to save 1.0 mmt CO2 Emissions. I'm not sure why they mention 20 mmt in your snippet. I tried to find something good to compare against but I'm no expert. From looking at carbon credit prices I suspect that there are better ways to reduce CO2 if you want to spend 168500 million dollars.