3 ms·
97% perhaps. EVs are nicer and more convenient there. And cheaper.
by speedgoose 7mo ago
97% perhaps. EVs are nicer and more convenient there. And cheaper.
- tw-20260303-001 7mo ago> And cheaper. You sound like a broken record. > Remove the EV subsidies and ICE taxes.
- speedgoose 7mo agoShould I include the cost of the current wars?
- tw-20260303-001 7mo agoGo on then.
- speedgoose 7mo agoPer my calculations, EVs are cheaper over the whole vehicle lifetime. I included construction costs and usage costs, in terms of money, environmental impact, and health impacts. Of course, no cars is even better. If we could all ski, cycle, or run, it would be even cheaper and better for our health. It’s a trade of.
- tw-20260303-001 7mo agoWe could all go back to caves, too.
- nxm 7mo agoOr bulk of NATO's defense costs, which Europeans refuse to contribute to
- 8note 7mo agofrom the impacts of the straight of hormuz closing, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine - electrification and removing dependence on oil and gas is a major defense cost. any spending on EV adoption should be considered part of the NATO commitment
- pqtyw 7mo agoEntirely because of taxes. Norway and Denmark are special cases because they already had extremely high taxes on ICE vehicles.
- applfanboysbgon 7mo agoDo you feel that externalities should not be taxed? That individuals should be able to do things that collectively cost everyone else in society money, without any expectation that they pay money into a societal fund to address the problems created by their own actions?
- pqtyw 7mo agoMaybe? Seems not particularly relevant. It's not like this cost is tied to the particular tax rate.