Jesus, what a stupid fucking hill to die on. Republicans never cease to amaze and appall.
Yeah, I don’t get it. I understand wanting to reduce or eliminate subsidies (they’re just a cash handout to dealers and manufacturers imo), but there’s no logical reason to be against EVs.
Here’s my proposal: allow tax credits for private sales. Perhaps add some requirements to certify that the seller owned the car more than a year or something to qualify to prevent flipping.
Their oil interest overlords are giving them their marching orders; it has nothing to do with logic (as usual) and everything to do with greed.
but there’s no logical reason to be against EVs.
There is, if you get paid by the Koch mafia.
Here is my reasonable argument against EVs. EVs only really solve the emissions part of the equation. They dont solve the massive amounts of paved surface, private ownership of thousands of pounds of steel and plastic, they still use massive amounts of energy to move that steel and plastic and building cities for cars is largely ineffecient and expensive to maintain.
We could do a lot more for the environment than EVs. Id rather see their subsidies go to things like electrified transit, cycling infrastructure or walkability improvements.
That’s actually somewhat my argument for EVs. We know there are better ways to live, with lots of benefits including being more environmentally friendly, but it requires long term changes that were not good at and political will we don’t have, and a huge upfront expense. EVs are better than status quo, are needed for less densely populated areas, and are an improvement we can make now everywhere. Let’s “git r done”
Even here in the Boston area, which is arguably one of the best in the US for walkable cities and transit, where more improvements are hugely popular, where politics is solid blue and politicians are on board, transit improvements are a matter of decades. Here in the suburbs:
- I’d take the train into the city but that’s the only direction it works.
- I can walk to my town center and transit hub, and frequently do, but that’s not where my job is.
- I can take Acela to NYC but that’s the only practical destination.
- my town is getting its third commuter rail station, as a park and ride for highway commuters, but that’s many years away and those commuters still need to get to the park and ride
Aside from people whose complete life is in the city, it’s difficult to see a time we could actually give up on cars. However there’s plenty of room for hope and optimism: we can take some trips out of cars, and we can continue to take more. Cars are necessary to step forward but the goal should be to minimize the cases where cars are necessary until people don’t find them worth having
Realistically, your choices aren’t “EVs or mass transit”, your choice is “EVs or Gas cars”.
Incidentally, your gripes apply to high density population areas, where busloads of people want to go from the same point A to the same point B at the same time, and cars do not make sense. That flips when you get to a more distributed population, where a hypothetical bus would run its route empty or with 2 or 3 passengers most of the time, in which case the car is actually “greener” because it’s not making empty trips and it uses less energy to move 2-3 people.
The only reason people in urban centers do not have transit is because governments neglected to build it. If they can build a 6 lane highway through your city, they could build transit.
We shouldnt use rural and spread out areas as an excuse to not build our cities and denser areas better and service them with transit.
Sure, but be aware that your messaging isn’t so targeted. The messaging is “fuck cars” not “our dense cities need to be more walkable and transit”. In this very thread it’s “we shouldn’t do anything for EVs, cars aren’t the answer anyway, we need to be ditching cars”.
Yes and i agree with that sentiment. 20 years down the line we will realize our cities are just as unwalkable and unable to be served by transit if we build them to exclussively serve the car. We should build cities so walking, cycling, transit and driving are all realistic options. For most north American cities we only prioiritize the car.
Sure, and I’ve seen some good projects, and less than good projects.
In my city, they took a street and closed it and redid it as pedestrians only. Worked great, more foot traffic going from any establishment to any other, and car people only had to walk an extra block or two to get to things.
There’s a section where they made a highly walkable environment from scratch, with car access basically through entering a big mostly underground parking deck, so the surface was reasonably car free.
On the flip side, the city loved these efforts so much they mandated mixed use zoning for all new construction. And the three big projects I’ve seen play out under this new scheme all followed the same recipe:
- Proposal with 90% residential, and 10% “retail/commercial”
- The proposal is phased, with hyper detailed residential plans and a vague box for the “retail/commercial” phase “to come later”
- The residential is built, and then the company withdraws their plan for further development.
One that did go in for the true mixed use early on suffered because no commercial tenant would tolerate streetside only parking (which was effectively part of the deal, given how the regulations were written parking lots/decks were not viable for these “walkable neighborhoods” when they could just have a parking lot or deck nearby by setting up their business somewhere else)
They could reduce the amount of paved surface, since adoption of EVs would allow some parking to be moved underground as they don’t generate fumes like ICEs do. Still should be treated as a stopgap solution as we move away from car-dependemce, though.
Question is what is the population density where you live?
If it’s over 1,500 people a square mile, I get it. Cars suck and they screw things up for you while making relatively little sense. Any mass transit can be reasonably highly utilized with that volume of people. Meanwhile out-of-towners with their cars really screw with your day to day life.
But for places that are, say, 200 people a square mile, cars are about the only way things can work. So hardcore “we shouldn’t have cars” rhetoric is going to alienate a whole bunch of people, for good reason.
The vast majority of people who are anti car are anti car centric urban environments. Noboby is expecting a small town of 300 people to build a tram, we are expecting places with congested highways to build transit instead of “adding one more lane to solve traffic forever”
Sure, and I can believe it, but the rhetoric is not so well targeted or scoped.
“we move away from car-[dependence], though.”
Is not going to be seen with the implied nuance by a large chunk of potential audience, and as stated may create opponents out of folks that really wouldn’t care at all either way.
as stated may create opponents out of folks that really wouldn’t care at all either way.
We shouldn’t change our statement if they wouldn’t care at all either way.
Interestingly, I lived in a small town of 3,000 people and up until the 1950s it had a trolley to the nearest small city, which then had trains that took you to the big city, and from there you could go anywhere.
But now the trolley sits in the town square as a monument, mocking everyone as they drive by.
Oh, I agree with you.
In my area, we’re widening a highway, which will cost $3-4B. We had a train project estimate that was rejected that totally would’ve replaced my commute that was estimated at ~$1B and was a prerequisite for a major company bringing more jobs here. We did the highway and not the train…
Overhauling transit just isn’t practical politically.
That said, I’m generally against subsidies and in favor of Piguovian taxes. I think we should:
- eliminate subsidies to fossil fuels and EVs
- increase taxes on large, heavy vehicles and gas to fully fund roads (remove road infrastructure from general taxes)
- funnel money saved from the above into mass transit - our entire transit system costs $20 times the annual ridership
I think much of north america is dug so deep into car centric planning that making drivers pay the full cost would be too expensive for a significant portion of the population and workforce. I think the alternatives need to exist before the taxation because many people are constrained to their car being their only reliable way to get to work.
Making that cost more could put huge financial stress on a family whereas building the rail before the taxation could provide a cheaper alternative before the taxation even begins.
There’s actually a really good logical reason to be against EV cars: they’re cars.
That said, there’s no good reason to be opposed to them in favor of ICE cars
There is a logical reason to be against forced adoption before the technology matures. For a lot of the country they are not a viable replacement for ICE yet. They’re improving, but not as fast as ICEs are being phased out and that leaves a lot of places where a dwindling used market will be the only option for many people.
What are you talking about? Pretty much the only thing I see on the used market are ICE vehicles. Do you live somewhere where they’re legitimately hard to find?
Prices for even 200k mile used vehicles are skyrocketing and cheap new cars simply don’t exist. Yes, ICE is the majority of vehicles out there, especially in rural areas, but they are more expensive and less available than ever. 10 years ago I bought a 100k mile Volvo wagon for $10k, put 50k more miles on it then sold it for $5k; if I wanted to buy the exact same car back today with 250k miles i would need to pay $15k for it. As manufacturers shift to EVs that problem is only going to get worse.
A 100k mile used car is already near the bottom of the depreciation curve, you probably sold it too cheap. Adjusting for inflation, $10k 10 years ago is $13k today. Covid did a number on the auto industry so all car prices skyrocketed, but they’re starting to recover: your hypothetical is only 15% higher when you adjust for inflation, which looks about right.
Cheap new cars don’t exist anymore because everyone want to buy fucking luxury SUVs or pickup trucks to drive their kids to school. It has nothing to do with EVs; we actually see this trend on the EV market too: GM abandoned their best-selling EV (Chevy Bolt) to instead focus on a bigger SUV (an electric Equinox, IIRC).
Yeah I drive a Honda fit. A vehicle with a cult following that’s no longer made
I sold it for market value, it was a rare 6 speed one and since then manuals command an insane premium in some segments.
Hybrids: am I a joke to you?
They’re a joke to all the manufacturers that went all in on EVs before the market fell out from under them.
Don’t forget that subsidies also swing in the other direction to fossil fuels companies. If we want to eliminate subsidies, then why not for both players so the playing field is even again? Otherwise, giving EVs subsidies might actually level the playing field more than not.
I absolutely agree! I think we should eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, increase taxes on roads so road users (not income taxes) fully fund them, etc.
But if we’re going to subsidize used cars, it should apply to the private market and not just the dealerships.
they’re just a cash handout to dealers and manufacturers imo
The US government subsidized $750B for the oil industry in 2022. The EV tax credit amount to peanuts compared to that. If you want a green energy and green transportation industry in the US, subsidies are absolutely necessary.
There’s already a solid market for used cars, unless you mean EVs, so no use for an incentive there.
The point of an incentive is a temporary tool to accelerate the transition to less polluting technology. While EVs are new they naturally are more expensive, there’s temptation to import from cheaper countries, but the incentive makes them less expensive to buy, plus incents growth of local industry. I’d also vote to phase out the incentive after that transition has happened: fossil fuel incentives should have been gone half a century ago.
If you’re specifically talking the used EV market, the most important factor is time. The more new EVs there are, the better the used EV market will be in a few years. It doesn’t help to try to increase sales of used EVs when there are so few. If you are looking used, please be patient: let’s do what we can to accelerate the growth of new EVs, and one of the benefits will be a strong used market in a gpfew years
Yes, I’m talking specifically about used EVs. We have an incentive for buying used from a dealer, but that doesn’t apply if I buy from the owner directly.
So all it’s doing is funneling money to dealers. Why would I buy a car for $20k from a private seller if I can get a similar car for $22k from a dealer with a $4k credit (so $18k net)? The private seller would have to sell for $18k to be on par, so why wouldn’t they sell to the dealer for $19k? In this scenario, the dealers pocket the difference. If I could get the credit for private sales, I’d be willing to pay $21k ($17k net), so both I and the seller are better off (seller gets $2k more, I pay $1k less). The result is that prices for used EVs stay higher than they normally would because the private market can’t effectively put downward pressure on prices.
It’s entirely stupid. The dealer certainly provides some level of value (financing, selection, etc), but the private option should be practical for those who don’t need or want what dealers provide. I have never purchased a car from a dealer, and I don’t plan to start now (I don’t trust them), and it’s part of why I don’t have an EV.
If only they actually would die on that hill. They won’t, because they’ve conditioned their base to support them no matter what. Instead, they’ll rot the hill and move on to the next once the one they’re on can’t be salvaged.
This is only a concern for EV companies. The environmental impact of these subsidies and regulations is nill
This is only a concern for EV companies. The environmental impact of these subsidies and regulations is nill
Got a source to back up your claim?
Here’s one contradicting it:
Gasoline demand growth to slow this year on EV growth in China, U.S.
“Penetration of electric vehicles has been increasing in U.S. and China,” said Woodmac analyst Sushant Gupta.
Both the USA and China subsidize EV sales (and also petroleum exploration and extraction for that matter).
“There is no future without electrification. But just electrification will not get us there,”
Daniel Posen is an associate professor in U of T’s department of civil and mineral engineering, and the Canada Research Chair in system-scale environmental impacts of energy and transport technologies. He agrees electrification is vital. But relying solely on electric vehicles to reduce carbon emissions from transportation may not be enough, especially if we want to do it in time to stop a catastrophic two-degree rise in global temperatures.
The article you link contradicts you, it clearly suggests that adoption of EVs reduce carbon emissions, but we still need to do more (e.g. ACTUALLY HAVE PUBLIC TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE) to prevent a climate catastrophe.
@sub_ubi@lemmy.ml edited their post and changed their source. The old source cited was this:
" Can Electric Vehicles Save the Planet?"
Eliminating gas-powered cars and trucks may help avert a climate catastrophe. But they are only part of the solution https://magazine.utoronto.ca/research-ideas/can-electric-vehicles-save-the-planet/
That is the source that @force as quoting and replied to, and @force is right I was going to respond similarly after reading the original source.
It’s quoting the same journal.
The point remains, Biden’s environmental policies will doom civilization.
The point remains, Biden’s environmental policies will doom civilization.
I thought you were on a bit of thin ground before, but I was willing to hear you out. Yet you’ve jumped laying the entire history of blame of climate change at the current sitting president trying to address it. You’re forgiving 150 years of industrial pollution, but damning one element of a path to address it as the thing that will destroy humanity?
I just don’t think I have the will to try to drag you back to some semblance of rationality. Carry on with your in your personal bliss.
Yes Biden needs to do more. The type of changes needed to avert catastrophe aren’t anywhere in his plans.
That would be fine if they were trying to reverse ALL personal vehicle adoption, but nooo.
The problem with this is that this will encourage Canada to do the same, like the good little brother it is, and we’ll get fucked along with y’all -_-
republicans are raping the planet.
bOtH SiDeS AkShUaLlY
So there are politicans who really believe that climate change is a conspiracy? Or they just don’t care for the future?
I don’t think it matters whether or not they really believe it.
Those who don’t, believe in money.
Have you seen how old they are? Doesn’t matter for them.
Electric cars aren’t going to fix climate change
Who says EV are going to fix climate change?
Electric trains might, but we’re even worse at building them than cars.
They can be built from acorn and twigs.
Are we? Diesel-ev hybrid is fairly effective and proven. Making a pure ev would just mean taking the diesel out, adding more batteries and installing electrical rail or over head trolley cables to charge them. Trains run on a schedule, so logistic planning should be straight forward.
Are we?
Recently, yes. California’s spent 16 years not building rail. The Gulf Coast states have been tearing their rail out and replacing it with highways for over a decade. The Upper Midwest has just kinda given up on doing anything useful, and just watched its transit infrastructure collapse.
My point is is that the tech is there. There’s just an unwillingness.
In the states, certainly. Elsewhere, its wildly popular.
The problem is that highway advocates don’t solve the problem of “who’s going to pay for all this?”. The reason infrastructure in America is in disrepair is that funding for highways is supposed to be gotten from tolls and road taxes. But since everywhere in America is a freeway… there’s no funding for repairs.
Expecting the Government budget to cover maintenance of infrastructure is wishful thinking… unless you’re also willing to agree that the military is allocated too much money.
funding for highways is supposed to be gotten from tolls and road taxes.
Regressive taxation leads to overfunded main roads and underfunded side streets.
Expecting the Government budget to cover maintenance of infrastructure is wishful thinking
Roads are fundamental to the operation of any government. It isn’t simply that states need to maintain roads. It is that states need roads in order to exist.
Roads are fundamental to the operation of any government. It isn’t simply that states need to maintain roads. It is that states need roads in order to exist.
Is it right to say then, that the users of the roads pay for maintenance? Do you expect the government to print more money to pay for maintenance?
Edit:
Regressive taxation leads to overfunded main roads and underfunded side streets.
As opposed to both main roads and side streets being underfunded without tolls and road taxes? Do you expect Government to print money to pay for all this?
Ok then that means we have to consider the fact that Car-oriented zoning laws and construction are bad for our future. 15-minute cities and infrastructure to support alternative modes of transit for longer distances are the way forward.
It’s gonna help. There’s not an all out 1 solution.
But don’t you see, unless there is one magical silver bullet solution that fixes everything then it’s all worthless and we should go back to dumping CFC’s into the atmosphere.
We should defintely still make EVs, overall they are going to be better than ICE. We just shouldn’t force/subsidize everyone to have to buy and drive an EV like we did with ICE cars.
Yes, but an easy target.
Remaining rich depends on them not believing climate change
Oil losing value, someone remind them that selling their bag holding oil stocks is a good play.
If anything, oil is increasing in value. It certainly isn’t losing it.
Less demand=less value. More electric vehicles=less oil
There’s an enormous amount of money in renewable energy and battery manufacturing. That’s why Texas leads the nation in wind farm power and Atlanta, Georgia is getting a $4.3B investment at its Hyundai electric vehicle plant.
But there’s also a ton of legacy infrastructure that generates enormous revenue streams. If you’ve just invested billions into our rapidly expanding oil pipeline network
You’re not going to want us to give up on mineral extraction across the American northwest or central plains.
This is a real clash of industries.
Comrades, it’s time to follow the example of Rico Rodriguez! Oil pipelines were made to be blown up! Along with military vehicles!
Alright buddy so you want to burn it down and cause utter chaos just cause you don’t like how things are going?
Well, when you put it that way it actually sounds a lot like the US military/government! You too should be friends!
…or are you only interested in blowing up pipelines in rich countries where the correct oil companies and defense contractors already own everything and are making money hand over fist?
If so would you hurt the soul of America like that? It would be like burning down Fenway or smashing the liberty bell to bits. Those poor executives would have to go home to their families and explain through tears and sobs that the halcyon days of shitting on the future of humanity for the next 15,000 years are over, and that consequences for the ruling class have officially arrived.
shudders what an awful thought!
Unironically, yes.
They’re bought by the oil industry
Are we in a “free market” or we not? The answer is “depends on what lobbyists want.”
Free market goes to the highest bidder.
Free for me and not for thee.
Might as well be the offical preamble of the Constitution (or at least the more conventional “rules for thee, not for me”).
Are we in a “free market” or we not?
Not.
Only when it helps to keep the poors in their place.
Not even only. The recognized goal of the modern marketplace is to achieve monopoly. Billionaires write entire textbooks on the subject.
To play devil’s advocate for a moment, is it really a free market if we are incentivizing one technology over another?
That argument can be made about the tax incentives.
However, regulations about emissions are intrinsically something we want, and we shouldn’t hold back on that just because gas cars can’t get to the level of emissions we need.
When the oil industry doesn’t have to pay to clean up their externalities we already don’t have a free market. You break it you pay. Fixing the externalities by incentivizing better technology is at minimum a correction to the market.
Free market involves pluralism of systems and distribution of power as important preconditions. Lobbyism requires monoculture of systems and power being sufficiently centralized to be controllable.
Also, the free market is a tool, not a utopia. It optimizes for whatever the people setting the limits of it make it optimize for.
Hence things I said. Otherwise the wheel is free for taking for the worst people.
Lol without all the subsidies gas would be $12/gallon. And burning fossil fuels (40% is automotive) kills more than 250,000 Americans per year. Whats the cost of a human life brah?
I think they’re more commenting on how the supposedly “free market” champions constantly interfere with the market when it suits their agenda
Yeah but in this case (EVs) it’s way better for public health and the “interference” is still a fraction of the scales tilted in fossil fuels favor.
Exactly. Those people tend to be extreme hypocrites.
Whats the cost of a human life brah?
That depends on if grandma is being evaluated by an Obama Death Panel (life is precious and invaluable) or by the stock market in 2020 (she has, what, a couple years left anyway, let her die).
In the US there is only one metric: Dow Jones death panel. The insanity of our culture is that Obama Death Panels were an invention of the Dow Jones death panel board to rally the lemming brained right against the concept of public healthcare (the horror!). Oh yeah, obligatory fuck Joe Lieberman.
Yes, that’s the point. These politicians interfere and meddle and cry “free market” when it is convenient for them.
Would have been far easier to just type “there is no free market”
Exactly I am not getting all this subsidy unfairness nonsense that stops Chinese firms from selling cars here. The only difference I’m seeing is that we’re subsidizing cars on the back end through oil subsidies, and they are subsidizing cars on the front end with production subsidies.
EVs are good an all but. they are just data collection machines. Electricity don’t grow on trees and I don’t even have a place to plug one in although I briefly rented a prius once (far from home ) and I liked it charging it whenever I was able to was convenient and on the limited commute I used it , I could get away with charging it on specific places and barely needed the gastank. I guess if you Americans have those large-homes garages parking spaces . and better infrastructure they are good for that put for ppl parking on the street and live on a flat at least where I am, finding a charger is a luxury. but even in your countries electricity is mostly fossil fuels isn’t it ? still better than polluting the road adjacent areas I guess. anyways these were my issues on the limited time I tried and ev an contemplated about buying one not related to republicans or America I know but adoption related ?.
Newer gasoline/petrol cars are also data collection machines. False dichotomy there.
Even if the electricity comes from fossil fuels, the efficiency of large plants is far better than that of individual combustion engines; and it provides better opportunity to replace the source with something renewable or at least safer, like solar, wind, or nuclear.
You are right. But I think EV charging generates more data than gas.
I ain’t buying a new car period ( not like I have money ) and a decent small hatchback like a polo or fiesta from early to 2010 would prolly be the best I can afford or a kia or hyundai might be a tad bit more affordable . I’d steer clear from anything newer not necessarily by choice but the whole cars becoming applications thing is def contributing to it
Have they tried helping Lower Gas Prices or are they just trying to make owning EVs Illegal like TRUE Small Government, Free Market Leaders would?
Inb4 “both parties are the same”.
While I hate stuff like these rollbacks, we are already starting to see EVs save people money on gas and service, and they are stupidly fast compared to ICE counterparts. That’s something Americans of all stripes can get behind.
Once I tried an ebike, I realized I never wanted to go back to gas engines. So fast, so much torque, and pennies to charge vs $70 gas tanks at Costco (even more at a normal gas station). It just makes economic sense to run PEVs in all major urban areas in addition to mass transit.
With traffic and some protected bike lanes, even a conventional bike can almost beat a car in a 7-14 mile drive in my city. An ebike makes it even easier.
Both parties are the same doesn’t mean that they have literally the same policy it means that they work together and focus on Republican policy. Because there are only two choices the fact that the Democrats are perpetually the weaker half despite having a much greater Democratic majority including during voting when you claim that it matters it means that the Republican policy always gets passed.
So basically, one side is a hive mind that’s required to always do what its most powerful members want, and the other has free thinkers that sometimes disagree, and you’re saying that the latter is weak, pointless, and should never exist.
Buddy, this is a terrible definition of “weak”. What you’re describing is a goddamn borg cube.
Both sides are the same hive mind that do what their most powerful members want, unelected oligarchs who pay for both parties elections, the other side are maybe better intentioned but tools of the same system designed to structurally lose to the other side despite what the votes state.
I never said just the democrats, the weak side, is pointless and should never exist in this way. I think the US government is an evil and corrupt oligarchy that maintains order by nuclear terror and are run by the modern versions of Nazis and shouldn’t exist. Your internal politics are a stupid joke and another circus.
we are already starting to see EVs save people money on gas and service, and they are stupidly fast
- there was an article on measurable air pollution improvements in I think San Francisco, attributed to EV use
- the stupidity on industrial policy gets me: EVs are a new industry growing fast, and Chinese companies are growing fastest. Effing idiots want to throw away the chances for American companies to get into the new market. Sure, be more profitable for the next quarter while watching your legacy market dry up and don’t even try to make your mark. Somehow this is all twisted up in Sinophobia and racism and we’re in Bizarro World where everything is opposite
I’d be riding an ebike right now, if I knew how I could park it safely :/ do you typically bring it with you?
I use an Oxford Monster chain and U lock. I park my bike in highly visible areas. Registered it with 529 garage and have the tracking sticker on it. And if I’m really sketched out, I activate a bike alarm that is ungodly loud.
Mostly, it’s about making your bike harder to steal. Cutting through 12mm chain and a standard ulock sucks. Getting caught with it being easily identified on 529 makes it risky to steal and easy to be returned. Some cities also do bike valet or bike lockers.
I mean, how much does your e-bike cost? If you can get one, especially a used one for a relatively affordable price and you actually sit down and tally up car costs like insurance, gas, maintenance, AAA, tires, any number of other costs…. I don’t think it matters if someone occasionally steals your e-bike (outside of it being extremely frustrating and inconvenient). Someone could steal your e-bike every 6 months or so and you likely will still be spending FARRRRRR less buying a new/used electric bicycle than you would just owning a car and using it and then having to deal with the insane never ending bullshit costs of keeping a car on the road.
So idk, build up a savings so you can replace your e-bike if you need to and then just use it. So long as you get a years use out of it or so it has already earned you quite a bit of money from cutting car costs.
Get one of those e-bikes with a removable battery with a key lock, then take your battery so if someone steals your bicycle they can’t steal the actually expensive part.
“It doesn’t matter if someone occasionally steals your bike” is… one hell of a crap take.
Why? Using a car you can lock up seems like a better alternative intuitively, I am pointing out that other than the emotional distress of having an object of yours stolen, owning a car is a regular rolling disaster of costs and suffering that dwarfs somebody running off with your $800 used e-bike every couple of months.
How is this a bad take? It is literally a documented phenomena that people don’t rationally take into account how expensive owning and using a car is.
I have arrived! Both parties are the same! No affordable EV’s for you! Keep slurrrrping that petrol!
Hike tariffs on Chinese EVs, Senate Democrats urge Biden administration
“Artificially low-priced Chinese EVs flooding the U.S. would cost thousands of American jobs and endanger the survival of the U.S. automotive industry as a whole.”
Honestly, dumping tons of money into tech that has so many problems may not he the best idea.
How do you think technology matures? It took years for automobiles to become reliable like they are today. It’ll take years for EVs to become mature, but the only way to do that is to work on them now and improve as we go along. The absolute wrong thing to do is throw out the entire concept because they aren’t perfect now.
OK, let’s just get rid of cars altogether, then.
You can pry my car out of my cold dead fingers
you’re a dumbass. The advocates for a car-free society want to make it so that owning a car is not mandatory because alternatives will exist.
It is not mandatory now, although it is convenient.
What problems
Agreed. The innumerable problems that coincide with fossil fuel based technology means it’s a terrible idea to continue to subsidize it at taxpayer expense.
It’s almost like any new technology starts out with problems that get solved through time, money, and resources.
…that shouldn’t be provided by the government.
Are you vegan or something? Without government subsidies, beef would cost Americans like $25 per pound. But you don’t want subsidies on anything?
So you want to end subsidies for oil and gas, for farmers to grow corn that gets turned into ethanol, or just subsidies for EVs? Let’s be clear here.
So I take it you’re against the government subsidizing science research in general? “The government shouldn’t fund new technology” is a stupid and destructive position. We’d be living in the 1800s if it were up to solely the capitalistic market. I mean, the first broadly effective antibiotics that are responsible for saving probably hundreds of millions of lives at least only exist because of people working in government-funded labs, under government-funded universities, for the government. Why should the environment be treated like it doesn’t matter to our civilization?
I like it much better when Republicans stick to pushing for things that are just useless rather than destructive.
Look up thos congresspersons’ donor history
Bet my bottom dollar they’re getting donations from groups that tie back to the auto industry
Get the fucking money out of politics
What’s the plan if we run out of oil? I mean seriously, it’s gonna happen eventually. Even if you want to ignore the science on climate change, you can’t ignore basic laws of the universe that oil is a finite resource. If we don’t have a plan for when it runs out, there will be utter chaos.
Synthetic. It has profit margin and purpose. Nothing we can’t fix without adding more bad things to the air…
you can’t ignore basic laws of the universe that oil is a finite resource
TLDR - gasoline is not a finite resource, but it is technology that has no future.
The stuff can literally be grown on trees. It’s cheaper to pump it out of the ground, but it’s actually not much cheaper. Fuel from plants, which we farm in bulk for human consumption, can absolutely be used to create gasoline. It’s also net-zero — because the plant takes carbon out of the atmosphere to create the oil and then it’s simply returned to the atmosphere when your burn it.
Most gasoline in the USA contains at least 10% biofuel, and some is up to 85%. The latter requires an engine tuned to run on it, however it’s possible (and is an area of active research) if you’re willing to spend a bit more money to manufacture 100% pure biofuel that can run on unmodified engines. Porsche in particular has started selling a biofuel that is specifically designed to run on classic cars that were manufactured decades ago.
The thing is though, battery powered vehicles are way cheaper than doing any of that. And if you really need a fuel based approach (e.g. batteries are just too heavy for large aircraft), then Hydrogen is a better option than any biofuel.
So - while gasoline can technically be environmentally friendly and is a usable source of energy for the foreseeable future, in reality it’s destined to follow horse drawn carriages and steam engines, a technology some people continue to use for their own personally enjoyment or to preserve our history, in reality it’s not going to be widely used much longer. We will be transitioning away from gasoline long before the earth runs out of fossil fuels.
Burning any carbohydrates in inefficient piston engines is never going to be environmentally friendly, though.
Growing crops to make ethanol is not particulatly green. In fact, in most existing production loops we would be better off environmentally to just burn pure gasoline than produce the ethanol to mix into it, unfortunately. Too much water, too many tractors and trucks, and way too much electricity into ethanol production to be worth what we get out of it. And the bit of carbon the crops sequester doesn’t overcome it. Electric vehicles are by far the greenest option right now.
Not to mention ethanol (what the previous person kept referring to as “gasoline”) is far less efficient, can only be used in high quantities on certain types of engines, and creates excessive smog during warmer months.
Don’t forget that every acre of corn grown for ethanol is one less acre of food grown and when you increase from 10% ethanol to 100%, you’re going to need 10x the amount of land to grow these crops all so we can pay top dollar at the pump to live in smog filled cities and get 10MPG in our vehicles.
If we keep burning oil then our civilization won’t have to worry about it at all, whatever’s left will be for Immortan Joe
Die. We will die. The only crutch that props up our massive jump from 1 billion pre industrialized society to our current 8 billion human beings on this planet, has been cheap and plentiful fossil fuel. Notably, it is the only thing that has allowed us to practice agriculture on a scale that supports our population growth. When it’s gone, there is nothing to replace it, short of a miracle fusion revolution.
The average carbon cost to produce an electric vehicle is about 6 tons on average, not including the battery, about the same as an ICE vehicle. Where does the energy for auto manufacturing come from? Primarily coal and natural gas, with a sliver of insubstantial wind and nuclear power. About 7 barrels of oil go into each and every tire on the road (between expended energy and actual petroleum products in the tire). Charging the battery? Coal, natural gas, and the same trickle of alternative sources mentioned above.
Speaking of those alternative energy sources, what do we use to make them? Building a nuclear power plant is likely the most carbon intensive process ever devised, from the machinery that moves the earth, to the foundry that makes the steel. As much as I’ve always wanted to believe in a cozy eco future, every time I squint a little I can see that it’s all just a coat of green paint over the same old oil field. The people trying to sell you on oil, and the people trying to sell you on alternatives to it, are doing the same thing. Selling you something. That’s all that matters to them.
There is no feasible alternative that changes the outcome. There is no replacement for what has allowed us to create wonders and horrors beyond our ancestors wildest dreams, and sustain a population far beyond anything we could have achieved without fossil fuels. When oil finally becomes unproductive, so will the mechanisms that hold our current civilization together, and we will wind up back in 1810 if we’re lucky, or 400ad if we aren’t.
Call me a doomer and downvote me or whatever. It doesn’t matter.
Yeah I was heavily into peak oil once, too.
Don’t underestimate the power of literally everyone on the planet really really wanting to avoid that situation. Life finds a way.
I don’t hold your hopium against you at all, I would love a positive outcome. I’m not holding my breath though.
99.9% of those people have no power to change anything of consequence, and most of the ones who have the power think their money will protect them.
You’ve been led to believe all of this is a malthusian “die off” that the GOP will make happen one way (ruining the earth to maintain its special privilege) or another (bringing about some kind of holy war). Stop it.
You’re getting too anxious about what every little thing costs the environment. Yes, you’re right, there’s no silver bullet that makes anything magically sustainable, but there also doesn’t have to be.
Pay more attention to the overall environmental cost, or the change in environmental cost. Of course we’ll never get to zero, but it’s quite possible to get to a sustainable level. The big example is always an EV: sure, it costs the environment a little more to make an EV than an ICE car, but looking at overall costs, you’ve already made that up after only two typical years of driving on most places. And that will only get better as manufacturing gets more efficient and power production gets more green
with a sliver of insubstantial wind and nuclear power
Dude, come on. Looking at US electricity production, yes, natural gas is the biggest. But nuclear production is about the same as coal. And renewables are about the same as coal. And coal is dropping like a rock while most new electricity production is renewables. Nuclear and renewables together are pushing 40%. Despite short sightedness from some of our corporate politicians, it’s way more than a sliver
I fully expected all replies to miss the point. You can’t make more nuclear power without massive amounts of petroleum based energy and products.
But, again, it doesn’t matter, and isn’t worth arguing about. People don’t get it because why would they want to get it? It sucks to get it.
There’s not going to be a moment when the world suddenly goes from having oil to having no oil. Some oil reserves are relatively cheap and easy to extract. Other, very large reserves are currently so difficult and expensive to extract that doing so isn’t profitable. As the easy oil gradually runs out, the supply drops, the price rises, and sources of oil that were not profitable at the old price become profitable. This maintains the supply of oil and stabilizes the price.
Eventually oil will become so expensive that alternative technologies will be cheaper than it. This will happen with plenty of hard-to-reach oil left. So it’s true that the amount of oil is in principle finite, but that limitation isn’t really relevant.
So prices will go up until you and me will get around with rickshaw. Whoever is poorer pulls the other. And while we bump forth; we wont have to worry about continued plastic pollution. Our rickshaw is made of metal and wood.
Eventually oil will become so expensive that alternative technologies will be cheaper than it.
We’re already there. If you remove the subsidies for oil and tariffs for Chinese EVs, driving a EV would be the cheapest solution.
Carbon prices and other incentives and disincentives can help accelerate this, and renewable tech and green(er) manufacturing will play into this too. I suspect (and hope) the decline in oil usage will happen well before we run low on it.
We will move on. As it turns out there are billions if not trillions of dollars in that industry.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Republican lawmakers are attempting to overturn the twin pillars of the Biden administration’s climate platform: tax credits for electric vehicles and the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules to curb tailpipe emissions.
The effort involves new bills introduced by members of Congress, as well as lawsuits filed by state attorneys general, all with the goal of rolling back the minimal progress made by the Biden administration to reduce the share of planet-warming carbon emissions produced by the automotive sector.
Last month, 25 Republican attorneys general filed a lawsuit intended to overturn the EPA’s recently finalized tailpipe rules aimed at slashing greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2032.
In a statement, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman accused President Biden of being “willing to sacrifice the American auto industry and its workers in service of its radical green agenda.”
In the final guidance, some automakers that have EV battery packs with imperceptible trace amounts of minerals like graphite that originate from China or other “foreign entities of concern” now have a two-year extension to fully adhere to the Inflation Reduction Act.
During the run-up to the November election, Republican politicians, led by former President Donald Trump, have seized on electric vehicles as a wedge issue in the ongoing culture wars.
The original article contains 636 words, the summary contains 207 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Why wouldn’t they? They are, after all, the craven whores who thirst for corporate donor cock.
Hey, I agree with the sentiment but sex work is a respectable job unlike being a crooked as shit congress person ruining the future of countless people :)
Also being a slut is a respectable job too, the world runs on sluts like me.
