6 ms·

Cutting these tax breaks seems counter productive. What is supposed to happen? The US and vehicle makers doubles down on ICE cars while the rest of the world

by duxup 1y ago

Cutting these tax breaks seems counter productive. What is supposed to happen? The US and vehicle makers doubles down on ICE cars while the rest of the world moves in the other direction? Sounds like a good way to trash any competitiveness US car makers have....

OneLeggedCat 1y ago
Counter productive to whom? Certainly not oil companies, nor the politicians that represent their interests?
- bluGill 1y ago
  Not really productive for oil companies either. They can fight, but they can't bring down oil prices enough to compete and consumers are catching on.
  - ryoshoe 1y ago
    Unfortunately they can lobby to prevent cheaper alternatives from being made available
    - bluGill 1y ago
      They can, but lobbies are not all powerful. Congress is always careful about something that could cost votes. There are enough EV owners that they will have a hard time daring make those voters mad.
toomuchtodo 1y ago
These efforts are struggles to maintain the status quo for entrenched interests against unsurmountable momentum as it relates to the clean energy transition [1] and the electrification of transportation. If you're looking for a rational explanation, the human will disappoint. Simply maintain pace and pressure in the appropriate direction. That effort, combined with time, will hopefully equal success. In my personal opinion, the "why" is important to understand from a threat model perspective (ie how do you hack around humans and entities attempting to slow or stop the transition), but not important as a contributor to input to speed the transition (because mental models and identity are rigid, and you're not taking the selfish out of the human, broadly speaking). [1] Texas Legislature Beats Back Assault on Clean Energy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44277367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44277367 - June 2025 (China installed 93GW of solar in May 2025, more than every other country combined in 2024: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44359105 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44359105)
- amy_petrik 1y ago
  Nobody is trying to stop the transitions, electric cars are a dog and for shit. Specifically the batteries, they're hyper-expensive, the range is for crap, and they need to be replaced every X years. The left was idiotic to think dumping Peter's tax money to buy Paul's new e-car, then in other cases outright legally banning non-electric cars, was the way to achieve this. To me, it's as silly as if the government got the idea in its head that steam engine is the winner and starts incentivized steam engine cars, with a year 2030 all-steam-engine goal. The way to overcome this so-called "entrenched interests" is clear as a bell, it's not some dramatic political struggle against forces old and evil. Electric cars are already in principle more powerful, simpler, and cheaper, than combustion engines, an amazing concept. Only issue is the battery. Government should have been, and should be, pumping money into developing a non-crappy battery, THEN when that's ready, there would be no need to incentivize people. The subsequent cars would be cheaper AND better. Let market forces decide, legislating what people ought to purchase is what is called a command and control economy and evidence shows that's bad
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    > electric cars are a dog and for shit. Specifically the batteries, they're hyper-expensive, the range is for crap, and they need to be replaced every X years. They are expensive, that's true, but the range is such a non-issue for anyone who can charge at home and drives a reasonable commute (i.e. doesn't need to stop to charge on their way home every day), and battery degradation is less than 2% per year. > Let market forces decide, legislating what people ought to purchase is what is called a command and control economy and evidence shows that's bad Equating regulation with communism is really tired rhetoric.
Arnt 1y ago
Not sure what's supposed to happen, but I can guess what will happen instead: US states will have to pay upfront for new factories to be built instead of promising tax breaks later, because the companies that decide whether to build will trust the promises less than until now.
dalyons 1y ago
So short sighted and self destructive. The US is actively sabotaging its future in innovation, manufacturing and energy. For what? To make its car industry even less competitive? The world is moving on with or without the US, as you say.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  For profits today. There is no will or care to invest for the future in the US.
  - foobarian 1y ago
    Wonder if it's just that, or whether there is a more sinister mindset in place that would gladly see the country slide in reverse towards a backward theocracy that would be easier to control.
    - dalyons 1y ago
      Honestly I think it’s neither, it’s just stupidity, incompetence and spite.
    - danaris 1y ago
      I mean, it's not exactly hard to see what the cause is of the resistance to electric cars and renewable energy: it's a combination of the vastly wealthy fossil fuel industry throwing its weight around, and specifically behind the Republican Party, and said party taking that and turning it into an ideological issue almost akin to a religion. There are certainly some with power who are keen to "see the country slide in reverse towards a backward theocracy that would be easier to control", but by and large they're just riding an existing wave that's largely an emergent property of the system, while maybe making some nudges here and there to reduce the resistance to said wave.
  - georgeecollins 1y ago
    Do you mean there is no will to make public investments in the future? Because in the private space the US leads the world in investing in the future. Think about how much we invest in AI and self driving! I think a US private company pioneered electric cars.
ajross 1y ago
> What is supposed to happen? That's an argument from a rationality perspective. This is a decision from ideology. It's not about making the best choice, it's about making sure the right people lose.
- specialist 1y ago
  Yes and: all these cuts (Medicaid, USAID, BIL/IRA, DOGE, ...) are to fund Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Were IRA the victim of Big Oil's revanchism, we could at least understand. This is just theft.
dylan604 1y ago
That sounds exactly like the MAGA plan. bigOil is too ingrained into the party to allow the demand for their product to reduce by eliminating ICE powered anything. To expect MAGA to dump bigOil would be more productive to bang your head on the keyboard and expect to write the code for anything.
- geoffeg 1y ago
  > would be more productive to bang your head on the keyboard and expect to write the code for anything. There's gotta be a joke about AI vibe coding there...
  - dylan604 1y ago
    I thought AI vibe coding was the joke
megaman821 1y ago
I am huge believer in the eventual dominance of battery-electric vehicles, but these tax incentives are very inefficient. The money would be better spent on R&D into batteries and motors. The time would be better spent making it easier to build.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
  It would be better spent on UBI and walkable cities but you know, sometimes the only progress we get is what voters will support
- specialist 1y ago
  Yes, Build Back Better would have been better. And we would've needed IRA 2, 3, and probably 4 to have any hope of achieving netzero by 2050. That the Biden Admin even got IRA passed was an amazing feat.
SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
> makers doubles down on ICE cars while the rest of the world moves in the other direction? Automotive EE here… As respectfully as I can; you have no idea what you are talking about and neither do the people cheering you on. These vehicles are not ready for the markets they are (were) being pushed to. Current electrics do not make sense in specifically hot or cold climates. They do not make sense for hard use. They do not make sense for long trips. They do not make sense for repair. They make sense in California for people that will keep them only a couple of years until the next status symbol is available. I own an electric, I work on some. I like the pluses, and am keenly aware of the negatives. I see people storing them outside in snow and it makes me sad for their owners that think they bought an alternative to an ICE vehicle. EVs today are not alternatives to ICE vehicles, the are compliments. Fun fact… right now with the systems today, most EVs that will need a new battery, will be totaled by that cost. I have the tools, I’ve been inside the 600V packs that can easily kill you. Mechanics aren’t trained, prepared for, or will accept the risk. These are not 20 year vehicles. They’re basically 8 year vehicles currently. Disagree with your feelings all you like, I live it.
- LargeWu 1y ago
  The country with the highest adoption of EV's in the world is Norway. If they can deal with the cold, so can the US. I have an EV in Minnesota and it's great. Battery life does take a pretty big hit in winter but that's fine based on how I use it. The real problem is lack of charging infrastructure, not the range.
  - SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
    Good point! I should have been the first to point out that battery tech has different rules in Norway. That a wealthy population half that of New Jersey is a good sample. And that any push for EVs in there reflect only realities of the product’s durability and nothing else like marketing or a shallow veneer of concern for “the environment” while they literally survive on oil. I can believe I didn’t think to use “the highest adaptation of EVs” as good metric. >I have an EV in Minnesota and it's great. Today. I’m sure it is. That “big hit” you take in the winter, will only ever get worse. Eh, but maybe I’m wrong! Maybe I should change jobs.
kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
Hybrids will be viable for a long time for regions of the world that don't have ready access to a charging station and for users that need to make long trips without delays from 30+ minute charge times.
- bluGill 1y ago
  Hybrids only are viable so long as they exist in large numbers thus ensuring that there is enough money to be made in having infrastructure. Since getting a PHEV I've massively cut down my gas purchases. Car buyers who care about money are catching on to just how much cheaper it is to fuel and EV, and the PHEV looks like the best of both worlds (lets not get into that debate). I'm predicting that in about 5 years EVs will be common enough that gas stations stop going up as fast - not that they will go out of business, but they companies building them will be more careful about there they put them in because demand just isn't there in many locations. Starting in 10 years there will be an increase in the number of going out of business because the demand just isn't there to support several of them on less busy corners. (both of these will be hard to see at first - there are other business cycles in play that make the trends hard to be sure of so it will be another decade before you can be sure) In 20 years gas will be hard to find - not impossible (collectors will still buy it, and long distance travel will be the last place is goes away so freeways will keep it much longer)
  - WorldMaker 1y ago
    Gas stations in the US are already built today to be low margin "loss leaders" (or nearly so) for convenience stores and supermarkets. Low margin can imply a high price sensitivity (as prices rise, they don't stay in business). There are possible snow ball effect scenarios where gas pumps could start to disappear much more rapidly once some tipping point occurs. Back to the other topic, having owned a PHEV for more than a decade now, it's such an obvious compromise that doesn't make a lot of sense long term. It made great sense when I bought the car more than a decade ago, but today the weight carrying around a gas engine and gas tank would be so much better put to use on extra battery range rather than a gas engine you need a lot less often than you think you do. The only person I'd recommend a PHEV to is whoever I sell my current car to when there's a full BEV I want to buy. But I've also had years where I've gotten the "use it before stale" warnings where my only use of gas that year was because I had no other use for gas and my car suggests keeping the age of gas below a year old, and I recognize there are still a lot of anecdotal use cases of extreme daily/weekly/monthly mileage in the US that I cannot speak to.

by duxup 1y ago

OneLeggedCat 1y ago

Counter productive to whom? Certainly not oil companies, nor the politicians that represent their interests?

bluGill 1y ago
Not really productive for oil companies either. They can fight, but they can't bring down oil prices enough to compete and consumers are catching on.
- ryoshoe 1y ago
  Unfortunately they can lobby to prevent cheaper alternatives from being made available
  - bluGill 1y ago
    They can, but lobbies are not all powerful. Congress is always careful about something that could cost votes. There are enough EV owners that they will have a hard time daring make those voters mad.

toomuchtodo 1y ago

These efforts are struggles to maintain the status quo for entrenched interests against unsurmountable momentum as it relates to the clean energy transition [1] and the electrification of transportation. If you're looking for a rational explanation, the human will disappoint. Simply maintain pace and pressure in the appropriate direction. That effort, combined with time, will hopefully equal success. In my personal opinion, the "why" is important to understand from a threat model perspective (ie how do you hack around humans and entities attempting to slow or stop the transition), but not important as a contributor to input to speed the transition (because mental models and identity are rigid, and you're not taking the selfish out of the human, broadly speaking). [1] Texas Legislature Beats Back Assault on Clean Energy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44277367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44277367 - June 2025 (China installed 93GW of solar in May 2025, more than every other country combined in 2024: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44359105 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44359105)

amy_petrik 1y ago
Nobody is trying to stop the transitions, electric cars are a dog and for shit. Specifically the batteries, they're hyper-expensive, the range is for crap, and they need to be replaced every X years. The left was idiotic to think dumping Peter's tax money to buy Paul's new e-car, then in other cases outright legally banning non-electric cars, was the way to achieve this. To me, it's as silly as if the government got the idea in its head that steam engine is the winner and starts incentivized steam engine cars, with a year 2030 all-steam-engine goal. The way to overcome this so-called "entrenched interests" is clear as a bell, it's not some dramatic political struggle against forces old and evil. Electric cars are already in principle more powerful, simpler, and cheaper, than combustion engines, an amazing concept. Only issue is the battery. Government should have been, and should be, pumping money into developing a non-crappy battery, THEN when that's ready, there would be no need to incentivize people. The subsequent cars would be cheaper AND better. Let market forces decide, legislating what people ought to purchase is what is called a command and control economy and evidence shows that's bad
- dns_snek 1y ago
  > electric cars are a dog and for shit. Specifically the batteries, they're hyper-expensive, the range is for crap, and they need to be replaced every X years. They are expensive, that's true, but the range is such a non-issue for anyone who can charge at home and drives a reasonable commute (i.e. doesn't need to stop to charge on their way home every day), and battery degradation is less than 2% per year. > Let market forces decide, legislating what people ought to purchase is what is called a command and control economy and evidence shows that's bad Equating regulation with communism is really tired rhetoric.

Arnt 1y ago

Not sure what's supposed to happen, but I can guess what will happen instead: US states will have to pay upfront for new factories to be built instead of promising tax breaks later, because the companies that decide whether to build will trust the promises less than until now.

dalyons 1y ago

So short sighted and self destructive. The US is actively sabotaging its future in innovation, manufacturing and energy. For what? To make its car industry even less competitive? The world is moving on with or without the US, as you say.

toomuchtodo 1y ago
For profits today. There is no will or care to invest for the future in the US.
- foobarian 1y ago
  Wonder if it's just that, or whether there is a more sinister mindset in place that would gladly see the country slide in reverse towards a backward theocracy that would be easier to control.
  - dalyons 1y ago
    Honestly I think it’s neither, it’s just stupidity, incompetence and spite.
  - danaris 1y ago
    I mean, it's not exactly hard to see what the cause is of the resistance to electric cars and renewable energy: it's a combination of the vastly wealthy fossil fuel industry throwing its weight around, and specifically behind the Republican Party, and said party taking that and turning it into an ideological issue almost akin to a religion. There are certainly some with power who are keen to "see the country slide in reverse towards a backward theocracy that would be easier to control", but by and large they're just riding an existing wave that's largely an emergent property of the system, while maybe making some nudges here and there to reduce the resistance to said wave.
- georgeecollins 1y ago
  Do you mean there is no will to make public investments in the future? Because in the private space the US leads the world in investing in the future. Think about how much we invest in AI and self driving! I think a US private company pioneered electric cars.

ajross 1y ago

> What is supposed to happen? That's an argument from a rationality perspective. This is a decision from ideology. It's not about making the best choice, it's about making sure the right people lose.

specialist 1y ago
Yes and: all these cuts (Medicaid, USAID, BIL/IRA, DOGE, ...) are to fund Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Were IRA the victim of Big Oil's revanchism, we could at least understand. This is just theft.

dylan604 1y ago

That sounds exactly like the MAGA plan. bigOil is too ingrained into the party to allow the demand for their product to reduce by eliminating ICE powered anything. To expect MAGA to dump bigOil would be more productive to bang your head on the keyboard and expect to write the code for anything.

geoffeg 1y ago
> would be more productive to bang your head on the keyboard and expect to write the code for anything. There's gotta be a joke about AI vibe coding there...
- dylan604 1y ago
  I thought AI vibe coding was the joke

megaman821 1y ago

I am huge believer in the eventual dominance of battery-electric vehicles, but these tax incentives are very inefficient. The money would be better spent on R&D into batteries and motors. The time would be better spent making it easier to build.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
It would be better spent on UBI and walkable cities but you know, sometimes the only progress we get is what voters will support
specialist 1y ago
Yes, Build Back Better would have been better. And we would've needed IRA 2, 3, and probably 4 to have any hope of achieving netzero by 2050. That the Biden Admin even got IRA passed was an amazing feat.

SV_BubbleTime 1y ago

> makers doubles down on ICE cars while the rest of the world moves in the other direction? Automotive EE here… As respectfully as I can; you have no idea what you are talking about and neither do the people cheering you on. These vehicles are not ready for the markets they are (were) being pushed to. Current electrics do not make sense in specifically hot or cold climates. They do not make sense for hard use. They do not make sense for long trips. They do not make sense for repair. They make sense in California for people that will keep them only a couple of years until the next status symbol is available. I own an electric, I work on some. I like the pluses, and am keenly aware of the negatives. I see people storing them outside in snow and it makes me sad for their owners that think they bought an alternative to an ICE vehicle. EVs today are not alternatives to ICE vehicles, the are compliments. Fun fact… right now with the systems today, most EVs that will need a new battery, will be totaled by that cost. I have the tools, I’ve been inside the 600V packs that can easily kill you. Mechanics aren’t trained, prepared for, or will accept the risk. These are not 20 year vehicles. They’re basically 8 year vehicles currently. Disagree with your feelings all you like, I live it.

LargeWu 1y ago
The country with the highest adoption of EV's in the world is Norway. If they can deal with the cold, so can the US. I have an EV in Minnesota and it's great. Battery life does take a pretty big hit in winter but that's fine based on how I use it. The real problem is lack of charging infrastructure, not the range.
- SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
  Good point! I should have been the first to point out that battery tech has different rules in Norway. That a wealthy population half that of New Jersey is a good sample. And that any push for EVs in there reflect only realities of the product’s durability and nothing else like marketing or a shallow veneer of concern for “the environment” while they literally survive on oil. I can believe I didn’t think to use “the highest adaptation of EVs” as good metric. >I have an EV in Minnesota and it's great. Today. I’m sure it is. That “big hit” you take in the winter, will only ever get worse. Eh, but maybe I’m wrong! Maybe I should change jobs.

kevin_thibedeau 1y ago

Hybrids will be viable for a long time for regions of the world that don't have ready access to a charging station and for users that need to make long trips without delays from 30+ minute charge times.

bluGill 1y ago
Hybrids only are viable so long as they exist in large numbers thus ensuring that there is enough money to be made in having infrastructure. Since getting a PHEV I've massively cut down my gas purchases. Car buyers who care about money are catching on to just how much cheaper it is to fuel and EV, and the PHEV looks like the best of both worlds (lets not get into that debate). I'm predicting that in about 5 years EVs will be common enough that gas stations stop going up as fast - not that they will go out of business, but they companies building them will be more careful about there they put them in because demand just isn't there in many locations. Starting in 10 years there will be an increase in the number of going out of business because the demand just isn't there to support several of them on less busy corners. (both of these will be hard to see at first - there are other business cycles in play that make the trends hard to be sure of so it will be another decade before you can be sure) In 20 years gas will be hard to find - not impossible (collectors will still buy it, and long distance travel will be the last place is goes away so freeways will keep it much longer)
- WorldMaker 1y ago
  Gas stations in the US are already built today to be low margin "loss leaders" (or nearly so) for convenience stores and supermarkets. Low margin can imply a high price sensitivity (as prices rise, they don't stay in business). There are possible snow ball effect scenarios where gas pumps could start to disappear much more rapidly once some tipping point occurs. Back to the other topic, having owned a PHEV for more than a decade now, it's such an obvious compromise that doesn't make a lot of sense long term. It made great sense when I bought the car more than a decade ago, but today the weight carrying around a gas engine and gas tank would be so much better put to use on extra battery range rather than a gas engine you need a lot less often than you think you do. The only person I'd recommend a PHEV to is whoever I sell my current car to when there's a full BEV I want to buy. But I've also had years where I've gotten the "use it before stale" warnings where my only use of gas that year was because I had no other use for gas and my car suggests keeping the age of gas below a year old, and I recognize there are still a lot of anecdotal use cases of extreme daily/weekly/monthly mileage in the US that I cannot speak to.