By on July 13, 2021

Smile Fight/Shutterstock.com

A little under two weeks ago, yours truly wrote about President Joe Biden’s plans for cutting tailpipe emissions and helping to encourage the shift to electric vehicles.

I laid out three basic philosophies that are at play in the debate as to how best move consumers en masse from internal-combustion-engine cars to EVs.

Here’s how I kicked off that piece: ” There are competing philosophies when it comes to shifting the market to electric vehicles. There’s the free-market philosophy, which says the market will get there on its own. There’s the incentive philosophy, which suggests incentivizing consumers will accelerate the transition away from the internal combustion engine. Consider that one to be the carrot approach. Finally, we have the philosophy that if regulations don’t force automakers to make more EVs, they won’t, at least not quickly enough to address climate change. The free market and/or incentives won’t be enough. Consider this to be the stick.”

I later said that I had thoughts on which philosophy would be best, and I’d hold my opinion for another time.

That other time has come, and my preferred philosophy on this matter is a blend of numbers two and three.

Now, before you flame me as some anti-capitalist radical, I am not necessarily opposed to free-market solutions. But I also find the free market to be limited, at least in some cases, when it comes to radical changes. It can also move slowly — and we simply don’t have time for slow change, given how serious of an issue climate change is. I also have noticed over the years that sometimes government intervention in the market actually creates opportunities.

Note: Climate change is real, and not a matter of opinion up for debate. We can debate how much of the problem is man-made (the consensus is that the actions of humans are the leading cause) but we can no longer debate if climate change is real or not. Furthermore, I am aware that while EVs don’t produce tailpipe emissions, there are legitimate environmental concerns about the sourcing of the necessary materials and the production of the vehicles. Therefore, I’m not arguing for or against a shift to EVs in this post — that’s beyond the purview of this piece — but rather, how best such a shift would be accomplished.

The logic of the free market philosophy works like this: Automakers are free to build what is most profitable for them and/or what consumers most desire. And if consumers want EVs, automakers will build them, but also if automakers build EVs and they are desirable, consumers will buy them.

The problem with that is automakers won’t pour tons of development costs into electric vehicles if there isn’t consumer demand for them. Or even if they’re uncertain about consumer demand — the high costs of building new models, especially with a relatively new powertrain technology, might keep risk-averse automakers from building EVs in the hopes they’ll sell.

It’s arguable that one reason that Tesla, once a small startup, was ahead of the rest of the industry on EV tech is that the company was more willing to be risky, given its startup nature.

And there are problems on the consumer side, too. Consumers are still concerned about range. Consumers want vehicles that meet their needs, and they find them best met by crossovers, SUVs, and trucks, and while EVs are being developed in that category, there aren’t enough yet.

There are concerns about charging infrastructure and charging times.

Consumers also think short-term sometimes. When gas prices dip, the incentive to shop EV lessens. Especially given the difficulties of charging.

If left to its own devices, the free market wouldn’t accelerate a shift to EVs. OEMs would continue to produce profitable crossovers and trucks with ICE powertrains, because that’s what buyers want (or think they want, in part because of OEM marketing), with little incentive to build EVs. As noted above, OEMs can be risk-averse.

Without intervention, the industry would just serve up gas and diesel-powered cars with a handful of EVs for those who really, really want them. To be fair, the ICE cars would still, generally speaking, be tuned to maximize MPGs and minimize emissions — buyers want to pass up gas pumps as much as possible — but there would be little emphasis on producing more EVs.

Unless, of course, the competition drove EV adoption. For all its faults, Tesla probably has pushed the legacy automakers towards EV adoption by making the tech sexy. Though I don’t think Tesla would’ve pushed the industry far enough on its own. If I thought that, I might be more supportive of the free-market philosophy toward EV adoption.

So that brings us to the carrot approach. Which we’ve seen in use for ages now. It usually involves government incentives in the form of a tax credit.

On its face, this approach seems workable. If early EVs are more expensive as automakers learn to scale and cut production costs on the technology, the incentives can help spur consumers by offsetting the higher MSRPs. And as EV costs come down, buyers might be enticed by the tax credit if it essentially means the sticker of an EV is less than a similar ICE vehicle, once the credit is factored in.

But this approach isn’t perfect. The tax credits are listed as “up to” a certain dollar amount, and depending on certain factors, the buyer might not get the full amount. It’s also a complicated question to determine whether your EV will cost less to operate over time compared to an ICE car that needs to be refueled, and the tax credits are just one part of that equation. Finally, tax credits don’t solve some of the issues of owning an EV, such as charger availability or charging times.

This is why some folks (including, in this author’s opinion, the current president) are pushing for what I call the “stick” approach. In this case, it’s an attempt to force automakers to build more EVs by pushing fuel-economy standards higher. Stricter fuel-economy standards would force automakers to build more EVs to offset the sales of ICE cars. This is because the average miles per gallon standard applies across the lineup to all models, so EVs can offset the MPGs of gas cars.

The negative here is obvious — few people in the auto industry want the government to dictate, even in an indirect way, what kinds of vehicles carmakers build. Especially if what the automakers are building doesn’t match what consumers want. Automakers don’t want to build slow-selling EVs to meet the standards, only to watch them linger on dealer lots.

Also, like the “carrot” approach, this approach doesn’t fix the issues regarding charging infrastructure. Though it could create opportunity — if the automakers are building more EVs, there will be a need for more (and faster) charging, even if the sales are slow overall.

Proponents of this approach will argue that if the automakers are forced to build EVs and offer them to consumers, people will buy them, and maybe even like them. And perhaps satisfied customers will share the EV gospel, thus causing more consumers to shop EVs, eventually causing EVs to grow as part of the market.

As for your humble author, I think an approach mixing philosophies two and three are more likely to bring change quickly, despite the negatives involved (it’s also questionable if incentives do spur EV buying, though at least one study seems to think so. Edmunds also seems to agree.).

Left to its own devices, without carrots or sticks, the automotive market probably would, eventually, be dominated by EVs. But we don’t have time for “eventually.” Not to mention that giving the market a shove in the direction of EVs will spur innovation in the industries needed to support them (aka charging).

Give makers a reason to build the cars, and buyers a reason to buy them, and we’ll move in the right direction much more quickly.

We need to.

[Image: Smile Fight/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

194 Comments on “Opinion: EV Shift Will Require Philosophical Blend...”


  • avatar
    Astigmatism

    The easiest solution, of course, is a significant carbon tax, paired with a significant refundable tax credit, so that people are still free to buy what they want but what they buy prices in the externalities it imposes. That could mean that EVs built with “dirty” energy would go up in price while ICE vehicles produced in a particularly efficient manner go down, or not. It would mean that energy in states heavily dependent on coal would be more expensive than those that produce a large portion of energy by natural gas and hydro or wind power. But ultimately, it would mean that the carrots and sticks are built into the market itself, leaving the market to come to the most efficient solution.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      The carbon tax is so simple and elegant.

      It’s simple: you tax things that harm the society and don’t tax things that help the society. As such, reducing taxes on income and increasing taxes on carbon seems like a big win.

      Too bad it has the word “tax” in it. That scares the rustics.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “As such, reducing taxes on income and increasing taxes on carbon seems like a big win.”

        Sure, but reducing one tax in exchange for another will ***never ever*** happen.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          This happens all the time. You can find an example in every major tax bill at least as far back as 1986.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            So… you think the Feds would actually slash income tax rates in exchange for a “carbon” but really functions as an energy consumption tax?

            I realize you are an expert in tax and gov’t but when have they actually *taken away* tax when introducing another? They just introduce another one and say “sit on it”, and even if somehow in some miracle they were to reduce income taxes to compensate they can just raise the rates later as need be while keeping the new tax. This is how they have operated for decades.

            In 1980, FICA (which was combined SS and Medicare at the time) applied to the first 6.13% on first $25,900 and 8.1% on first $25,900 for self employed. By 1990, the range doubled (minus $500, real cute) to 7.65% on first $51,300 and the overall self employment tax nearly doubled to 15.3% on the first $51,300. In 2017 OASDI is 6.2% on first ***$127,200***, 1.45% on ***all earned income***, with an additional 0.9% over $200,000, with the self employment tax at 15.3% on first $127,200 and escalates from there over $200K. So in my lifetime for W2 and self employed workers they have raised the amount of eligible tax six fold while nearly doubling self employment costs.

            Since 1980 have we really experienced inflation six fold so the tax needed adjustment upwards?

            According to this site, by 2013 the USD had suffered 226% inflation since 1980. Google is saying 226% of 20,000 is 45,200… they upped the eligible amount to $51,300 in 1990! FICA taxes alone have skyrocketed since 1980, and you really think you can trust them with *yet another tax*?

            https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1980

            http://www.milefoot.com/math/businessmath/taxes/fica.htm

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Federal income tax rates for both individuals and corporations are near historic lows, and the percentage of GDP collected in taxes is too. Some of those reductions were paid for by increases in other taxes (notably payroll taxes), while others were financed with good ol’ Treasuries, and (for the collections piece) by increased tax evasion. But if you’re trying to convince me that tax rates never go down you’re fighting against a lot of historical evidence. I think it’s entirely possible that you could cut a bipartisan deal that gives the Democrats a carbon tax in exchange for the top-bracket income tax cuts the Republicans love so dearly. (If they were really the party for the working man, those would be cuts in the lowest brackets, but… yeah, no.)

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            The bottom 50 percent pay no income taxes so I’m not sure why they need a tax cut. I believe the term you are searching for @Dal is handout…not Tax cut.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Well, yes, I think a general refundable tax credit would be a good thing. (Or you could cut payroll taxes on the first $30k of income for a similar effect.) Pay for it with an increase in capital gains and estate rates. When you have billionaires over here with <10% effective rates it is time to rejigger things a bit.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            So are we just not going to tax the first 30k? If you are single and only take the standard deduction isn’t the effective tax rate on 30k like 5 percent? And that is before any credits hit. What rate would you set it at @Dal.

            In reality, if you are bringing in 30k, it is likely you are getting a larger return than your witholding already via existing credits. So “refundable credit” is a way to say handout without making people feel bad in this case.

            I am fine with not taxing it. But lets cut with the BS here…if those people need a tax cut it isn’t at the federal level…There are barely any taxes to cut there. Taking them below zero tax liability is a subsidy or handout…not a cut.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Yes, I think we should be subsidizing earners at that level, and I’m happy to say it. No taxes on the first 30k, and a refundable credit that slides down inversely with income. That could replace a lot of existing patchwork welfare programs at much less administrative cost, and it could nearly eliminate deep poverty overnight.

            Contrary to your “no taxes” claim, employee and employer payroll taxes take 13%, and that’s before any state or local taxes. There’s no point in making already poor people poorer.

            (We need other changes to make this policy work fully—right now, it would only enrich landlords—but that’s beyond the scope of this argument.)

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            No, you aren’t happy to say it. It took you several posts to move from framing it as poor, overtaxed people getting a break on their taxes to calling it the subsidy that it is.

            And we aren’t talking about payroll taxes. Everyone with income is paying those. In theory you are paying into systems that you will one day get a return on (Social Security, Medicare).

            You want to eliminate those? Cool. I can get a way better return elsewhere. I suspect what you are really driving at is something else though…like me funding their retirements because I don’t “need” that Social Security. Call it like it is man.

            My zero skill high school graduate only kid with no job experience got a job at over 30k at a local manufacturing plant. He was offered another position at similar pay.

            That’s the income and skill level you are talking about here. And I’m fine with them not paying income taxes. But the tax code exists to fund the government. What you are proposing are sweeping social welfare programs. They should be framed, debated and eventually voted on as such. Quit with the “Woe to the poor…they pay too much in taxes”. It is downright dishonest. Go out there and sell your vision like LBJ and let the voters decide.

      • 0 avatar
        RangerM

        “rustics”

        And people wonder where the disdain comes from.

        • 0 avatar
          Astigmatism

          Probably the same place where using “Chicago” as a buzzword for the total breakdown of society comes from.

          • 0 avatar
            Norman Stansfield

            It’s Chiraq.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            http://heyjackass.com/

          • 0 avatar

            “Shot & Killed: 381
            Shot & Wounded: 1814”

            Not a big deal, it is a normal for Chicago and New York. No one talks about it on TV. And these people chose to live in gun-free zones led by Democrat Majors for ages. In Soviet Union and China much more people died shot execution style by NKVD and secret police what amounts to FBI in US.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Stop with the Chiraq nonsense…way fewer people got shot in Iraq the last year I was over there then are going to be shot in Chicago this year. It is unfair and disrespectful to the leaders in Iraq to draw such comparisons. Iraqi voters would not put up with those levels of incompetence.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          “And people wonder where the disdain comes from.”

          Inferiority compensating with perceived intellectual superiority.

      • 0 avatar
        aja8888

        Reduce tax on income? You must be kidding! NEVER HAPPEN!

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        “you tax things that harm the society and don’t tax things that help the society.”

        “society” meaning, as always, the connected ad unproductive who live off of taxing, by all manners of harebrained means, productive people, of course.

        No different from how “rule of law” is just shorthand for arbitrary rule by dilettante ambulance chasers incapable of producing anything of value on their own, but instead relying on governments’ guns to force the, once again, productive, to fork over.

        Not that absolutely all and any restriction on any emission is necessarily unwarranted. If your tailpipe emitted nerve gas by the ton per hour, or for that matter your one horsepower engine of choice emitted manure in the quantities one horsepower engines are wont to; while traveling through densely populated areas, I doubt there would be many objections to some interference. But even if you tried really hard, you’d have a very hard time coming up with any substance _less_ damaging than carbon, in CO2 form of all things.

        Of course, if one insists that absolutely all change is by definition baaaaaad, and/or that any other thermometer reading than the one from the moment one got laid for the first time in the summer of ’69 is somehow a “wrong” one, I suppose even CO2 could be forced into the role of bogeymen. Maybe. But man, is that reaching.

        There’s plenty of butt cold places on the planet to go to, for those whose who feel those suit their clothes better than their current one. Doesn’t seem as if many do, though. Whether one is talking about humans or other life. Although there is evidence some species a bit more pragmatic than Homo Rob-and-Harassimus are in fact extending their habitats further towards the poles. Life, at least intelligent such, being highly adaptable and all….

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          I grew up in Seattle. Every July and August during my entire childhood and young adulthood featured a succession of crystalline, perfect 75- to 80-degree days. Once in a while we would have a few days when it got as high as 90, when everyone would complain about the heat (no A/C anywhere) and less would get done.

          For 5 of the last 6 years (and it appears this one will extend the streak), our summers have been nightmares of smoke pollution from extensive wildfires. We’ve undergone weeks at a time of air quality bad enough to seriously affect people’s health. Last summer, we had a solid week of air quality that was worse than the very worst days in New Delhi. Meanwhile, the temperatures are in the 80s when it’s smoky and often in the 90s when it’s not. The three hottest days in the recorded history of our area were all last month. Our street trees are dying because of a fungus that grows in the extreme heat, and has only in the last few years been able to survive here. None of this used to happen, ever.

          Climate change is not treating us well. But at least we, unlike parts of the South, are not likely to suffer lethal wet bulb temperatures in the next decade or two.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @dal20402 – agreed. In my childhood I NEVER had a summer choked by fire smoke. My dad only had 1 summer in the 40 odd years he lived in our region. My son’s (17 and 19) have had close to 1/2 of their summers choked by smoke and experienced record temperatures.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Let me guess @Luke…you will decide what harms society and what helps it. Sounds less like a tax and more like another way for society’s leeches to convince themselves that they are entitled to some more of the fruits of my labor.

        And at the end of the day I fall into line and do all of the “good” things you’ll still find some reason to dig that hand into my pocket.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        “As such, reducing taxes on income and increasing taxes on carbon seems like a big win.”

        Duh!

        Reducing taxes on income, and replacing it with either nothing; or with anything, absolutely anything, else whatsoever (nuclear Armageddon may, but only may, be the exception); is a win.

        Doesn’t somehow make arbitrary taxation of harmless, ever present chemicals even a remotely good idea, though. It’s just that income taxes are, along with inflation taxes and underhanded taxation by mandates and regulations, THE single greatest horror ever visited upon mankind.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        “…That scares the rustics.”

        But the leeches so love it

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Yup. We are building Rube Goldberg machines to get around this, because our politicians are scaredy-cats, but it is the policy that would best promote a quick response to the climate crisis while preserving individual freedom.

      • 0 avatar
        jack4x

        A well designed carbon tax also has the benefit of accounting for the fact that the transportation sector is less than 30% of US emissions, and that light duty passenger vehicles are barely half of that.

        https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions

        Consumer tailpipe CO2 could drop to zero tomorrow and 5/6 of US emissions would be left unchanged. It seems as if an undue amount of attention is devoted to reducing consumer choice on cars, when there’s plenty of other places to target for emissions reduction. A carbon tax means a level playing field and doesn’t overly punish ICE drivers while allowing other industries to skate by.

        • 0 avatar
          Astigmatism

          And, properly implemented, it would incentivize companies to manufacture locally, both because of the very unrenewable energy supplies of some of our Asian competitors and because of the incredibly carbon-intensive process of getting all that crud across the ocean.

        • 0 avatar
          TCowner

          THIS – as jack4x said is what no one mentions.

          “Consumer tailpipe CO2 could drop to zero tomorrow and 5/6 of US emissions would be left unchanged. It seems as if an undue amount of attention is devoted to reducing consumer choice on cars, when there’s plenty of other places to target for emissions reduction. A carbon tax means a level playing field and doesn’t overly punish ICE drivers while allowing other industries to skate by.”

          90% of the current global warming issues are driven outside of the US. Our ICE vehicles have the most stringent rules and are the cleanest of any country. Go to a Latin American country where vehicles are puking visible smoke into the air. And what about China’s increasing coal industry volume? The problem lies outside the US and that’s where the goofball Left’s focus should be.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @TCowner:

            So…the logic here is “well, country XYZ isn’t doing something, so we shouldn’t care.”

            By this logic: country XYZ encourages abortions and actively confiscates any privately owned firearm they can find, so we should do the same.

            Oh, and by the way…we should blame the “goofball left” for not forcing country XYZ to conform to our values.

            That about the size of it?

            How about this instead: let’s solve the problem for ourselves, and then SELL the tech we used to Country XYZ, and MAKE MONEY AND CREATE JOBS DOING IT? Sounds positively capitalistic to me.

            What do I know, though…m a goofball leftist. Shutting up now.

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            I find the whole “But China!” argument to be a strange one. Since when do we not take any action to address a problem if that one action won’t, on its own, solve the problem?

            The actual numbers are, the US accounts for about 15% of global CO2 emissions. That’s about the same portion of the federal budget made up by non-defense discretionary spending – i.e., everything other than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, servicing the debt, and paying for the Pentagon. I don’t see many conservatives touting the “Why should we try to limit spending on [literally every federal department or agency other than the Pentagon], because even if we zeroed it out, we’d still have a massive deficit?” argument.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “Since when do we not take any action to address a problem if that one action won’t, on its own, solve the problem?”

            I’m confused with that line. Why take an action that won’t solve a problem?

            Comparing climate legislation to things to abortion or defense spending seems unnecessary considering the different impacts involved.

            If you think reducing greenhouse gas in the US while leaving the rest of the world on the honor system will be enough then that’s an argument to make but I’m not sure I’d be in agreement. And, I actually don’t think many politicians are in agreement with that either; which is why you end up with multi-nation things like the Montreal Protocol and Paris Agreement. There’s just no teeth to them.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        The carbon tax uses the free market to sort out the details of solving climate change.

        The societal/global price of carbon emissions aren’t something you can put onto a balance sheet, while the benefits of using carbon-based fuels (like moving goods around) are accounted for. With this incorrect price signal, we fail to use fossil fuels in a way that maximizes the benefits we receive from them.

        By correcting the market-inputs (the price of fuel), we can then let the markets (one of the most powerful human institutions ever created) do their self-organizing resource-maximizing thing.

        • 0 avatar
          Luke42

          Under a “replace the income tax with a carbon tax” change, all you’d have to do to cut your taxes would be to drive an efficient car.

          Liberals can let low-income people keep more money, conservatives get to eliminate a big tax.

          If you want to screw the government by cutting your own taxes, all you need to do is buy less gas — and save the gas for the most useful and/or most awesome uses.

          On the flip side, if you want to use a lot of gas for some reason, you can do that too — just pay the bill, and be done with it. Nobody’s going to stop you, or make you drive an EV.

          It’s hard to see how anyone can see eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a carbon tax as something other than an improvement. It’s not perfect, but it’s definitely an improvement over the way we’re doing things now.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            This is a moot point…literally nobody at any level of government is having that discussion and it isn’t what is being proposed anywhere.

            What is being proposed and discussed is up to 12k in subsidies on the purchase of an EV and passing regulations that will make it more difficult to sell ICE vehicles profitably or serve the bottom of the market.

            So let’s correctly identify the carrot and stick here, who is paying for the carrots and who is getting hit with the stick and have a reality based debate.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          “The carbon tax uses the free market to sort out the details of solving climate change.”

          No it doesn’t. All it does is take money from some, and hand to others. The latter invariably being connected non-productives.

          If “we” do end up finding a long lost stone tablet Moses brought down from Sinai, stating unequivocally that arranging for a somewhat-speedier-than-otherwise conversion of in-ground carbon compounds into CO2 harms others; and if one for some silly reason insist on following the current fad of dressing ones totalitarianism up with an Adam Smith tie, at least do the mock-market-thing right: Every man is born with the right to emit X amount of carbon. If someone wants to emit more than that, they have to buy it off of someone else. One is still ultimately stuck with a contrived and silly game which requires a totalitarian state to implement, but at least the crass theft by those connected, is a little better camouflaged.

          • 0 avatar
            Alex Mackinnon

            All a carbon tax is a fee or fine for using the atmosphere as a dump.

            The CO2 budget is spent, you don’t have a right to dump shit into the atmosphere because we’re already past the tipping point that has changed the climate. There’s a reason why most of the 2050 goals are net zero.

        • 0 avatar
          TCowner

          FreedMike

          “So…the logic here is “well, country XYZ isn’t doing something, so we shouldn’t care.”

          By this logic: country XYZ encourages abortions and actively confiscates any privately owned firearm they can find, so we should do the same.

          Oh, and by the way…we should blame the “goofball left” for not forcing country XYZ to conform to our values.

          That about the size of it?

          How about this instead: let’s solve the problem for ourselves, and then SELL the tech we used to Country XYZ, and MAKE MONEY AND CREATE JOBS DOING IT? Sounds positively capitalistic to me.

          What do I know, though…m a goofball leftist. Shutting up now.”

          Good – thank you for clarifying what I said. Let’s solve the big problem, which ISN’T here in the US. Forcing electric vehicles on us will do minimal compared to the other opportunities elsewhere in the globe ruining things.

    • 0 avatar
      Norman Stansfield

      Carbon taxes are regressive. Rich people can afford to put solar panels on their home to charge their cars. Poor people renting, don’t have that option.

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        Hence the refundable tax credit.

        But also, rich people tend to have larger homes, and larger cars, which use more energy. Meanwhile, the average person living in an apartment and taking the bus has very little energy consumption, by comparison.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          Yeah but that person living in an apartment will also have to bear the higher cost of goods, like food and other necessities hurting them much more than the person in the big house.

      • 0 avatar
        Alex Mackinnon

        And yet rich people on average produce a lot more carbon.

        You can also setup a carbon tax however you want. In BC, the refunds go to income brackets.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Why the refundable tax credit? Where do you devine the right to own an automobile? Set the tax rate and move on. If you can’t afford a car, take the bus. if the Bus sucks in your locale, vote for better leaders.

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        Because the intent is not to suddenly impose a massive, and somewhat regressive, net tax increase across the economy. Unless you’re into that sort of thing.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          The science is settled here. We can’t debate it and we don’t have a decade, per “the science”

          So enough. Put up or shut up here.

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            What does the science have to do with a refundable tax credit? What science are you referring to?

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            The Science says you do not have a decade to slowly come around on warming. That window has closed. You need pretty sweeping changes in a timeframe that will not be comfortable.

            That is the consensus of these same scientists that are being used to justify this. So stop screwing around and make the unpopular choices that are required here. That means some of you will no longer be able to afford a car.

            This isn’t a tax problem.

            And if a car is too expensive for some to afford there is no constitutional right to a vehicle. Car salesmen arent reading you some version of your Miranda rights on the sales floor.

            Taxes are to fund the operation of the government…not your personal transportation habits.

            And quit with the “refundable tax credit talk”. There is no such thing. If you go below zero, which at the income levels being discussed you will, it is a subsidy or handout. A Credit reduces your tax liability. What you propose eliminates it in the brackets you are discussing and then writes the “taxpayer” a check.

            You want to go to zero? OK, fine…but not below. If you are going to do that call it what it is…a handout. You can’t cut taxes for people that dont pay taxes.

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            Yes, we’ve waited too long to address climate change to avoid significant adverse effects from it. What of it? That doesn’t change the fact that we _still_ need to address it to avoid it being even worse. And, as I said in my initial comment, the most efficient way to do that is with a substantial carbon tax, to use the market to change behaviors. If you want less of something, you tax it more; this is pretty basic Econ 101 stuff. It’s the same reason we have such high taxes on cigarettes.

            And “refundable tax credit” is what it’s called when the credit can result in a positive payment to the taxpayer when the credit is greater than the amount otherwise owed to the government. I’m not sure why you find this terminology so upsetting, but you should take it up with the IRS (and Congress).

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Cool. So you can no longer afford a vehicle because of the realities of climate change that we are no longer debating. Fine. Not sure why I should kick in to help you buy one. A Car is not a basic human right.

            If I am going to be buying luxury items for you and basically make you my dependant, do I get to have your kids mow my lawn and bang your wife regularly like my own dependants?

            Do what you have to do on the climate. Tax away and pass regulations. But what you are proposing is transferring my wealth to someone else because this is going to be uncomfortable for them. That is not my problem or concern.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “That is not my problem or concern.”

            I mean, that’s what is going to occur whether you are into it or not. Aside from leaving the country you can’t opt out.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Naa, I have enough to cease working at this point and live out my days. And if that’s going to happen, how? You don’t have the votes now and the midterms certainly aren’t looking to be a blue wave.

            And if you were honest about what it is going to take to address this with people, they’d run you out of town on a rail. So you convince them that they don’t have to sacrifice…if only those rich people would do their part.

            Show me the numbers…per Capita carbon emissions and where you have to set that tax number to meet them. You won’t because it involves far more sacrifice than you have led them to believe.

            So what are the numbers? Those Scientists have said them, yet the politicians are silent on that bit. Until you are willing to look people in the eye and tell them the truth, this is all a big money grab.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            I’m not sure who “you” refers to in that reply, but in the end it is what it is. I don’t think voters are going to develop a large anti tax credit sentiment.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            “I mean, that’s what is going to occur whether you are into it or not.”

            Is it? Because I gotta say, it doesn’t appear that you have the votes now or in the foreseeable future.

          • 0 avatar
            Old_WRX

            Art Vandelay,

            “So enough. Put up or shut up here.”

            To quote the august Greta Thonberg: “How dare you?”

            The only thing that is proven is that the MSM keeps pumping up this chicken-little-ian the sky is falling stuff.

            So let’s say for the moment that the climate change scare is true. Taking away cars from everybody in the US will be way too little and way too late to stop planet earth from toasting like a marshmallow dropped in a camp fire. So, the ostensible reason for going EV just goes out the window.

            I’m getting really sick of all these people who think disagreeing with the majority consensus is tantamount to treason.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Old_WRX – We are at the point where we cannot reverse climate change but can reduce the severity of the effects. Blindly going on without mitigation isn’t much different than walking off a cliff just because that’s where the cliff is and that’s the way one is walking.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          A carbon tax would be highly regressive.

          The current tax credit of an EV is also very regressive in nature since you need to have a tax liability at least equal to the amount of the credit to get the full benefit. Rather than a refundable credit being able to carry the unused credit over to a future year would be a better way to go.

          As it sits right now many people live in areas with a low cost of living that make more than enough to buy a new car, but don’t pay as much federal tax as the amount of the credit.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            I agree with you about the EV credit.

            The calculation of whether a carbon tax is regressive isn’t simple. You have to take into account (1) the effect of offsetting tax cuts, (2) the benefits of emission reductions directly attributable to the carbon tax (which will also include ancillary reductions in emissions of other pollutants, and the benefits of those tend to be *extremely* progressive), and (3) the long-term effect of changes in development patterns that result from the changed incentives the tax creates, which also tend to be progressive. There’s a lot more to it than just saying “lower-income people spend more of their income on gas.”

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            I agree this isn’t about the fact that low income people spend more of their money on gas. That is because we aren’t talking about a gas tax increase we are talking about a carbon tax.

            If is large enough to spur changes it will increase the cost of virtually everything, particularly the necessities of life like food, clothing and shelter which are also things that lower income people spend a larger percentage of their income on.

            Those at the lowest of income levels don’t pay much in the way of federal taxes or may be the recipients of gov’t assistance so tax cuts will have limited benefit to them.

            The low income people will also be much more limited in how they can respond to lower the burden of a carbon tax.

            Meanwhile at the upper income ranges it is unlikely to spur much change particularly if combined with a reduction in income tax.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            Rethinking it a bit it should be possible to elect to take the EV credit over a 3-5 year time frame. That would expand the people who could get the full amount and essentially subsidize any increase in the monthly payment. That would make it more accessible.

          • 0 avatar
            Old_WRX

            Lou_BC,

            “Blindly going on without mitigation isn’t much different than walking off a cliff just because that’s where the cliff is and that’s the way one is walking.”

            You’re analogy doesn’t work. A better analogy (again positing for sake of argument that man made climate change is real and significant) would be someone who has terminal cancer deciding whether to opt for six months of living relatively healthily and then dying, or get chemo and live for a whole year — but sick as a dog from the chemo.

            What I see is that we can’t predict the paths of hurricanes with a whole lot of accuracy despite the large number of prediction/actual cases we have to hone the modeling, but we are expected to believe that the predictions of the effects of climate change for 20 or 30 years out aren’t so far down below the noise floor that they are meaningless. And, let’s not forget that we have exactly zero prediction/actual cases.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Old_WRX – you are going on the premise that we have little control over our destiny. We are not at a metaphorical “6 months to live” scenario yet.
            The best metaphor would be living “high on the hog” eating a poor diet even though we were warned otherwise and developing a curable intestinal cancer. We can ignore treatment and suffer and die or suffer through surgery and a lengthy chemotherapy along with lifestyle changes. That would then give us long life but not at the same level we enjoyed pre-disease.

            We aren’t at a terminal phase but like cancer, denial is a huge problem. In this case, I know I’m not the one that’s going to suffer if we do nothing, my children will.

    • 0 avatar

      The good thing about a carbon tax is that including the externality in the price allows individual purchasing decisions guide the market as to where it pays to decarbonize and where it doesn’t.

      I would certainly pay extra for a zero or low carbon house–which is a big advantage in New England, because you can go away in winter for several weeks and not worry about the pipes freezing, and you save big on heating costs, and somewhat on cooling costs as well. (Such houses have existed for a number of decades here–I wrote about one in the early ’80s.)

      And I would not buy an EV at least until charging is at least close to as convenient everywhere (including the boonies) as filling the tank is.

      (A major carrot would be a program to make fast charging as ubiquitous as gas stations. I can well imagine that that in place, overall costs, and reduced maintenance and repair would save people enough time and money that EVs would sell well if people could rely on easily charging them.

      It’s worth noting that in the US, personal vehicles cause about 14% of CO2 emissions, thus, they constitute a relatively small piece of the problem (total transportation, including air travel and shipping, accounts for around twice that).

      • 0 avatar
        Old_WRX

        Lou_BC,

        “you are going on the premise that we have little control”

        Again assuming that “climate change” (CC) is real:

        Denial itself is not a problem. It’s the actions of people that count.

        The media has done an exceedingly poor job of promoting awareness of the possible peril from CC. Among the problems are that they do not present both sides of the argument. There are scientist who do not believe that CC is a real danger, but you will never see them fairly represented in the MSM. The whole tone of the MSM raises red flags — more hysteria-mongering than an attempt to provide sober info to intelligent citizens. The way they say “scientists say” reminds me of the way the leader of a primitive tribe might tell his people the “priests say.”

        I saw a truly laughable article on weather dot com. The article claimed that “all scientists agree” about the dire nature of CC. A) All scientists will never agree. This not to say that scientists are a bunch of wackos, but, rather, that valid scientific work is based on a rigorous skepticism. Scientific fact is not based on consensus. B)_I personally knew of scientists who did not agree. C) Not all scientists have knowledge relevant to CC. Some might read up on it enough to feel that, even if environment stuff isn’t their bailiwick, that they can reasonably offer an opinion.

        Assuming

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Old_WRX- there is the claim that keeps being made about 97% consensus. If one breaks it down, around 55% strongly agree that man-made climate change is occurring and a threat. Roughly 42% are weakly positive or neutral. Obviously the remaining 3% are strongly in the negative camp.
          That was a “conservative” think tank that an analyzed the “consensus” claim.
          “Scientific fact is not based on consensus.”
          That’s not incorrect but it isn’t accurate either.
          There aren’t many true scientific facts, just theories. Scientific theories that are accepted as being the sound need to meet the gold standard of being peer reviewed and peer replicated. If most scientists agree that a current theory is sound, that’s consensus. It does not mean that critical thinking and further study and/or research stops.

          Overall, scientists believe that man-made climate change due to CO2 is a threat. Oceanographers believe CO2 levels are killing our oceans. There are other disciplines that are also worried about CO2.

  • avatar
    Luke42

    If we don’t build an EV industry, then EVs will be imported — because they will win the merit competition.

    It’s really just a question of whether we want to build these things here in the US, or import them after someone else makes the investment (and captures the profits) that come with EVs.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    We as US voters don’t have a lot of control over this. The Chinese and EU markets combined are twice the size of our market and that difference is just going to grow as China grows. The shift to EVs is going to happen on their timetable, not ours, and the question is whether we are prepared for it. Short of imposing a carbon tax, we can prepare for it by encouraging buildout of charging infrastructure (which doesn’t all have to be direct government subsidies; private utilities have incentives to help); applying a mild incentive for a household’s first purchase of an EV, to help people familiarize themselves; and encouraging government R&D funders to support EV- and battery-related research.

    Some of the market inertia is because EVs are just now starting to arrive in the most popular segments for the US, but more of it is because people haven’t owned EVs and don’t realize either (1) how to deal with them on beyond-range trips or (2) what their advantages are. The transition will accelerate as EVs get cheaper and people get more familiar with how owning an EV works.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Oh ok, so submit to the demands of the literal CCP Politburo and the EU de facto Politburo, the latter of which is two to three steps from societal upheaval and which the Red Army could roll over in two weeks without US/Canadian assistance? This thinking isn’t even a f*** Trump thing any more, this is just dishonoring the memories of our ancestors while destroying the lives of our nation’s children and effectively committing national suicide. F*** both of these authoritarian blocs and what *they* want.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        That’s fine for you to feel that way, but you’ll have to convince the automakers, all of whom want to sell into both the EU and China. The automakers are going to respond to regulatory pressures in their biggest markets whether we approve of the local governance or not. (And I think you’re being pretty fair to China and not very fair to the EU.)

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          Do US Automakers want to sell in the EU? I assume the one that is actually a European automaker does, but Among GM, Ford and Tesla it seems only 2/3 of them still care to.

      • 0 avatar
        Old_WRX

        28,

        “F*** both of these authoritarian blocs and what *they* want.”

        Yup, call me crazy, but I don’t want to live in a world that is one big company town. But, save your breath. They can’t hear you.

        Whether cLImaTe cHAngE is real or not, the reason this is being pushed so hard is to remove money from the pocket of A and put it in the pocket of B. Of course, while making this more of a surveillance/totalitarian state. (I suspect the latter is probably more important to ____.)

        What they are doing to children in the schools these days is pure unadulterated evil. Did you know that they are teaching school children to regard their parents as the “opponent”? The goal is to turn children against their families, and turn them all into little SJW’s.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    No credit. If we are going to go down this road, so be it but at the end of the day a car isn’t like legal counsel…you have zero right to be provided one in the event you cant afford one.

    If people agree with Mr. Healy, and vote accordingly, fine. I mean the debate is over so welcome to the new reality. EV’s cost more than ICE vehicles. Also reality. You can buy one or you can’t. Not really my problem until of course you somehow divine a right to a car somewhere in the Constitution and legislate that the rest of us should shell out and help you buy it.

    I say roll it like the mid 70’s. Here are the rules automakers…figure it out.

    That figuring will likely involve a decade + of mass market EV’s that are seriously compromised. They will have limited range and as a means to milk all of that limited range, they will be slow. People will buy them because those are the choices unless you have the coin to get something that doesn’t suck. Just like the Malaise era. And just like then the automakers will figure it out and cars will become decent again. Know what makes them not figure it out? a 12k dollar subsidy that lets them pad profits on subpar products. If it sucks, then make it not suck.

    But that’s not what you are after. You want the good stuff and if you can’t swing it, you want those of us that can to kick in some for you. You use words like “fate of the planet” and “sacrifice”, but you really speak of someone else’s sacrifice (yes, me giving up more of the fruits of my labor so you can have a car is a sacrifice even if you don’t feel I “need” that much”.)

    If things are as dire as you say and the debate is over, fine. What is the appropriate per capita CO2 emission level? What has to happen to get there? If your life is less comfortable (as all of ours will be) sorry. That may mean you no longer get a car. This is the reality you have painted and what you have voted for. Don’t expect me to make it comfortable for you though.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      That decade of compromised EVs has already come and gone.

      They’re pretty competitive in every aspect except road-trip-refueling time, now. (Most charging occurs at home.)

      And, yes, some landlords will need to make changes to accommodate EV-owning tenants, but an EV charging station is easier to install than a washer/dryer.

      • 0 avatar
        jack4x

        “They’re pretty competitive in every aspect except road-trip-refueling time, now.”

        If that’s the case, why do we still need the tax subsidies and ICE bans? Surely if there’s no downsides, people will flock to them of their own accord right?

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          Because EV batteries are still too expensive. The difference has grown much smaller, but isn’t gone yet.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            So if you were to build a car with a battery sized to be price competetive with an ICE it would likely have a smaller battery and be…whats the word…compromised?

      • 0 avatar
        CoastieLenn

        Oh come on now Luke. I don’t remember having to hire an electrician to rewire a portion of my home in order to install my washer or dryer.

        An EV charging station requires a 240V connection OTHER than the dryer outlet, unless you want to swap plugs all the time. Sure, you CAN use 120V, but the likelihood that your car will be charged in the morning when you go to work is slim. Most homes now, even new builds, are not coming with additional 240V outlets or pre-wired for EV charging. That’s something that has to be discussed upon building of the home, or it won’t have it if you didn’t commission that build yourself.

        Then you get into the costs of an EV charging station itself. That would not be something to kick to landlords, that would be something that the EV owner would probably (hopefully) have removed from one residence to be brought to another.

        • 0 avatar
          random1

          Every home has 240 coming in to it. There’s those cheap solution to use your dryer connection. Split-volt I think? Sure, you can’t charge at 240v and max amperage while your dryer is running. That’s about it.
          As far as charging stations: either you’ll pay for use, or it’ll be an amenity that is priced in in some manner. These are non-issues.

          • 0 avatar
            CoastieLenn

            @random1- I was making reference to Luke’s assertion that installing an EV charger in your home is easier than installing a washer/dryer. I know 240 goes into (nearly) every home aside from SUUUUUPER old historical homes.

        • 0 avatar
          Luke42

          @CoastieLenn:
          “I don’t remember having to hire an electrician to rewire a portion of my home in order to install my washer or dryer.”

          Electric dryers use outlets that look like this:
          https://www.thespruce.com/3-and-4-wire-dryer-receptacles-1152226

          They’re 240V split-phase AC, and the amperage is high enough that you could easily plug an L2 charger into it.

          If you didn’t have this wiring in your house and you needed an electric dryer, you would need an electrician (or to have the skills of an electrician) in order to install one.

          If you have an apartment building, and want to add amenities to raise the rent, installing EV charger would be about the same amount of effort as installing a dryer. You’d probably need longer wires for the EV charger, but you don’t have to install the dryer-vent — and you wouldn’t have to install the plumbing to support the washer. It’s close enough that you’d probably need to get actual bids from contractors to see which one is cheaper in that particular building.

          If you don’t remember hiring an electrician to install a dryer, it’s because someone else hired the electrician/plumber (for a gas dryer) to install the dryer for you.

          Yes, some people will need to upgrade their panel and electric service. Most people won’t need to. Just depends on what else is in the house. My house had a hottub (which we removed), so I have plenty of panel-amps left over. [shrug]

          An EV charger is just another household appliance. It’s not a big deal to install one.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “My house had a hottub so I have plenty of panel-amps left over,

            “An EV charger is just another household appliance. It’s not a big deal to install one.”

            Some of you high-income guys are wild. Adding a dryer to a house is a big deal for most people. How often do you think people *add* a large appliance to their home?

          • 0 avatar
            jalop1991

            “An EV charger is just another household appliance. It’s not a big deal to install one.”

            …says the guy without any clue about how the real world works outside his little coastal area filled with new homes with attached garages.

            By dumb luck I have 30 amps in my detached garage. Should I want the full 50 amps, however, I will have to pony up some serious coin for rewiring.

            Yeah, it is a big deal to install one.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        No Luke, it hasn’t if we are talking about selling them at the prices entry level EVs go for. Point me to the EV that the Versa buyer can currently grab instead. Heck, how about the Civic level (the lower trims)

        They don’t exist. The Mini Cooper SE is 30k. That’s as cheap as they go in the US MSRP wise it looks like. Looking at various deals it seems like I could score a Bolt at 28 or so if the stars align so let’s go with that. Now that’s not especially compromised other than it being small. But that is still nearly double the current bottom of the market (Versa is under 15) and something like a Kicks is under 20.

        Where do you trim 15k off the price of a Bolt? The answer is likely a sub 100 mile range until they figure it out. Again, taking the 15k from me and shaving it off the price 9f current tech does not encourage them to figure out anything.

        Remember back when we gave all those subsidies in the 70s to encourage Americans to buy small, fuel efficient cars? Yeah me either. I remember Detroit spending a decade plus figuring it out because the companies that were good at making small cars had them teetering on the edge of the grave.

        Remember how the tariffs on Japanese bikes got Harley Davidson to produce modern, competitive bikes setting them up for future success? No?

        Look, this may be painful, but like Mr. Healey said, the debate is over and it’s time to pay the piper so suck it up. Something something fate of the planet!

        So how do you get them to that level? Likely via cutting range, power and size ie compromising the existing designs.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        And I would have no issue installing one for my Tennant as I’d simply pass the cost on via an increase in rent.

  • avatar
    thornmark

    “the consensus is that the actions of humans are the leading cause”

    Consensus isn’t science – and citing consensus is really an effort to shut down legitimate inquiry and replace it w/ politics

    “the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

    In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      “Consensus” in science happens when all of the experimental results support the same conclusion, and that is what has happened in climate science. Like you say, scientists are generally a fractious bunch who are always trying to verify competing hypotheses. But sometimes there is enough evidence that a hypothesis is proven. At this point it is just as certain that (1) we are undergoing the fastest climate change event in the knowable history of the world and (2) human carbon emissions are causing that event as it is that water is made of molecules containing two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. The controversies in climate science are now about how fast the future of climate change will unfold and just how bad the consequences are going to get.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “Consensus isn’t science…”

      Ah, yes, the “unless it’s 100% proven it’s not science” bulls**t argument. Here it is, in another context.

      The consensus of science is that if you eat crappy food, smoke, and don’t exercise, you’re going to die earlier than you should. Now, science can’t prove ***when*** you will die early, or even that you ***will*** die early – after all, plenty of folks live long lives with awful lifestyle habits. Therefore, eat all the crappy food you want, smoke like a fiend, and don’t exercise…because the science isn’t 100% on all of that. The best they can do is a consensus.

      And whatever you do, just ignore that even if science is wrong about this, if you eat well, don’t smoke, and do some exercise, you’ll probably feel and look a lot better. Heck, your sex life may be better too.

      Ignore it all…it’s all a scientific consensus. For all you know, Uncle Fred died of lung cancer because he inhaled asbestos in 1980.

      Brilliant plan, right?

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Should people still be able to have bacon cheeseburger sometimes though? And if yes, how often is “sometimes”? That’s where I think the concertation starts.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Think of ludicrous mode as a big freakin’ bacon cheeseburger, with endless fries and a strawberry shake on the side. Just don’t eat all three before you launch. (rimshot)

          Seriously, most EVs are darn quick. I drove a single-motor Model 3 and was every bit as fast as my old A3, with the added benefit of zero-hesitation power. EVS should have quite a bit of appeal to people if they give them a chance.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            So that’s a no then?

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Look, I don’t care. I’m going to be able to swing a car either way in this. And yes, there are some nice options if you have the coin…just like in the Malaise era.

            But where does the current Kia Soul or Nissan Kicks buyer go and what are they getting for the $19,995 they are currently paying? They aren’t getting Ludicrous mode. And given current prices they aren’t getting a vehicle and there is zero evidence that a 10k credit or any tax will change that.

            So put up or shut up on this. Have the Scientists determine where we need to be carbon wise and write the legislation to get there.

            I’m sorry if this means you can no longer afford a vehicle. Something something fate of the world.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “But where does the current Kia Soul or Nissan Kicks buyer go and what are they getting for the $19,995 they are currently paying? ”

            “And given current prices”

            I believe the idea is that in 2030 the EV equivalent of a Kicks will cost same (or less) than the ICE version.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            OK, but the debate is over and if the consensus of those Scientists is correct, which again…we are no longer debating then in a decade this country is going to be a desert or underwater in large part depending on where you live. Not to mention the starvation as the nation’s breadbasket dries out

            These are again, the Scientists’ predictions which we are no longer debating.

            We don’t have a decade. This is going to be painful. I want someone to give me the numbers on per Capita carbon emissions that the world, I feel must meet and how we can get there in time to stave off the worst effects.

            Furthermore, if a country is not buying into this and not playing ball I feel we need to be using the might of the US Military to bomb their chief sources of pollution until they are compliant.

            I have been told for 20+ years that the consequences are dire if we don’t.

            If you or the leaders you support believe all this and the Science is above debating and you are calling for anything less, you are frankly chicken$#!+.

            But when faced with those dire predictions the magic bullet is taxing the rich…well I was born on a day but it wasn’t yesterday.

            Time to put up or shut up. This will hurt. Sorry…but again, we are talking about the fate of the planet and mankind here according to the Scientists.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Consensus occurs in science ALL OF THE TIME. Why do you think replicable peer review is the “gold standard”?

      If one’s peers study your research and and replicate the results then the group of scientists will accept it as valid. It does not mean further research and the quest for knowledge stops.

    • 0 avatar
      ollicat

      Thank you for this. Nobody seems to follow the money trail on “consensus” anyways. What the real statement should be is, “There is consensus on liberal government funded science that has a desired outcome.” This is so similar to the cancel culture. The merits of the arguments no longer matter. Just get enough bullying on one side and make the other side shut the hell up.

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        The reason climate scientists agree on the science behind anthropogenic global warming is because the merits of the arguments support it. This is how science works.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        @ollicat:
        Good idea to follow the money. Do that with the “there is no such thing as global warming” consensus, you’ll find that it all comes from the companies selling fossil fuels. Fancy that, eh?

    • 0 avatar
      jalop1991

      “the consensus is that the actions of humans are the leading cause”

      Consensus isn’t science – and citing consensus is really an effort to shut down legitimate inquiry and replace it w/ politics

      – – –

      Absolutely. But you’re wasting your breath.

      Like George Santayana said, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

      Also:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

      Consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @jalop1991- nice strawman. The “concensus” that the sun revolved around the earth was primaily a primitive religious ideology. It was never scientific.
        Consensus is what happens when many scientists agree that research is valid. Nothing more.
        There’s consensus on Einstein’s theories or the Big Bang.

        You ever require surgery? That procedure is consensus driven i.e. most surgeons agree it’s the best approach.

        No one has said that consensus means stagnation. Present viable reproducible evidence to the contrary.

        • 0 avatar
          jalop1991

          @Lou_BC:
          “You ever require surgery? That procedure is consensus driven i.e. most surgeons agree it’s the best approach.”

          no kidding. Ask a surgeon how to solve a problem, and he recommends surgery? Imagine that.

          Been there, done that. Didn’t work out.

          When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

          You might want to re-think that whole “surgeon” talk track.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Ask a surgeon how to solve a problem, and he recommends surgery? Imagine that.”

            Ah, so because there are surgeons out there who recommend surgery even if you don’t need it, you shouldn’t listen to a surgeon, ever. If you ever actually need surgery, remember that, and tell the surgeon to go fornicate himself. OK?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @jalop1991 – I’ll use cancer treatment then. Studies show what treatments gives someone the best chance of survival or palliation. There tends to be a consensus around the protocols to follow. If a cancer is rare or uncommon then experts will meet to decide the best approach. That’s the approach used in BC and we have some of the best outcomes in the world.

            You obviously missed my point but you might be pointing out the main flaw with the USA profit based healthcare system. They will do almost anything if someone wants it and they can profit from it.

  • avatar
    Imagefont

    What it is, is $15,000. That’s how much more an EV costs, minimum, compared to an ICE vehicle. Except the ICE vehicle is more versatile, more useful, probably longer lasting and far, far more convenient. So I’d say EV’s have an uphill battle to gain general acceptance, requiring some magical and far fetched technological breakthroughs. Don’t hold your breath.
    Fly less, cut out unnecessary trips, tax the Shamoo out of pickup trucks and take public transportation – except all those things are asking too much. Most people would rather chock to death.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Why would an ICE be longer lasting? It has way more finicky mechanical components than an EV.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        They will both last as long as parts are available and they can be maintained. There are examples of electrics, ICE and steam powered vehicles from the turn of the last century still running.

        There are BEVs with 400k plus on the batteries, and there are high mileage ICE motors. In theory a BEV with the fewer moving parts should last longer. Then again, a wankel has fewer parts too and that hasn’t been the case

        Longevity will continue to be mostly attributable to a quality design, good materials and solid assembly.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I’m fully in support of expanding charging infrastructure but I’m 100% not going to vote for anyone supporting ICE bans. That’s the hill I die on.

    • 0 avatar
      CoastieLenn

      Ahhhh yes, another divisive argument for some to find it completely unacceptable to fall on both sides of. Just what this country needs, amiright? YOU MUST PICK! YOU MUST PICK NOW! NO!!!! YOU’RE WRONG!

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      There’s no realistic possibility of a general ICE ban in the US anytime in the near future.

      If there are ICE bans, they will be piecemeal, and (like the ones in Europe) more about local air quality and noise levels than about carbon.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Why not? We are talking the fate of mankind here!

      • 0 avatar
        jack4x

        Sorry dal, if the last 5 years or so have taught me anything, it’s that a lot of things I did not think possible in this country are now well within the realm of possibility.

        If a “national emergency” is enough to build a border wall in defiance of the Congressional budget or shut down “non essential” businesses by executive decree, there is very little that would give me the confidence to state no one in the near future will be coming for my ICEs “to protect the climate in an emergency”. Especially when precedent has already been set overseas and in some blue states.

      • 0 avatar
        wolfwagen

        Remember when the government bans ICE guess who will still have ICE?
        The government.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          No one’s banning ICE. Why? Because hundreds of millions of voters own ICE vehicles and banning them would be political suicide. Calm yourself…and lay off the Ayn Rand and Parler.

          • 0 avatar
            jack4x

            To be clear, banning the sale of new ICEs is still a ban in my eyes. And states are already doing it. No Ayn Rand or Parler required, just reading CNN.

            So no, I don’t lie awake at night worrying that someone is going to come to my house and take my cars away from me at gunpoint. I do worry about not being able to buy a new gas car or truck in the relatively near future. I do worry about government slowly (or quickly) putting the squeeze on existing ICE owners to “encourage” them to switch. And I worry because these things are already happening in other countries and states that some places look to as examples.

            Just being unpopular is no guarantee of protection. Governments do unpopular things all the time “for the greater good”.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Some have *proposed* banning sale of new ICEs. It hasn’t happened. Other famous propositions: when George W. Bush got re-elected, he *proposed* privatizing Social Security, and Donald Trump *proposed* voting Obamacare out of existence.

            Last I checked, Social Security hasn’t been privatized, and Obamacare wasn’t voted out of existence. Why? Because large blocs of voters pushed back against both propositions…just like they will if someone tries to ban ICE vehicles. Even in hyper-liberal places, I think it’s a safe bet that there will be a torch-and-pitchfork parade in any state capital where the legislature tries to vote ICEs out of existence because there’s a large chunk of voters who simply don’t want them banned. And I suspect that a decent percent of the torch and pitchfork carriers will be the working poor, many (if not most) of whom vote Democratic.

            The shift to EVs is going to happen, but it’ll happen when the market’s ready for it. It isn’t right now, and threads like this one show why. So, for now, incentivize EVS and put money into the infrastructure needed to support them. That approach will find acceptance among the voting public.

          • 0 avatar
            jack4x

            Torch and pitchfork parades at state capitals didn’t prevent COVID shutdowns by unilateral executive action. Protests didn’t stop the Muslim travel ban. Protests have not led to any action on guns, they haven’t stopped many pipelines, they haven’t restored Trump to office, etc. I don’t trust my fellow citizens as my only line of defense.

            Basically, I don’t have any confidence a future Democratic administration won’t decree a ban on ICE sales at some point. “National Emergency” is now an accepted reason to do anything controversial without any checks and balances. Not hard to see a “Climate Emergency” being declared. I’d be overjoyed to be wrong about that, but with both parties seemingly running to their extreme wings as fast as possible it’s hard to be optimistic.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I think there’s a difference between a public health emergency and putting people into different car types. But even then there are limits – some of the shutdowns ended up overturned in court.

            And let’s say Biden tries to ban ICEs by executive order, ala Trump with the travel ban. You think he’ll survive that? I don’t.

          • 0 avatar
            jack4x

            “Don’t you think there’s a difference between a public health emergency and putting people into different car types?”

            Personally, yes I do. I don’t have nearly the same confidence in elected officials that use apocalyptic rhetoric about the climate.

            “And let’s say Biden tries to ban ICEs by executive order, ala Trump with the travel ban. You think he’ll survive that?”

            Not in 2021. But give it a few more years, with more “proposals” as you state them, to ban at the state or local level, softening people up and getting them used to it, and yeah I could see it happening within the next few years. A few more sensational news stories about fires and hurricanes might help. Attitudes change. In the 90s, Clinton would have been impeached for declaring gay marriage legal by executive order. A generation later, Trump would have been impeached for declaring it illegal by EO.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @jack:

            With respect, you’re talking more about your distrust of government and elected officials than climate change. I get it. But it’s pretty obvious to me that what we are seeing IS human-driven climate change, and if EVs are one step towards dealing with that, then that explains the government’s actions. If we wait for “the market” to change things, it will eventually happen, just at a much later date. And there’s a whole lot of nasty stuff that can happen between now and then.

          • 0 avatar
            jack4x

            “With respect, you’re talking more about your distrust of government and elected officials than climate change.”

            Yep, you’re right. So let’s talk about climate change.

            I don’t want to give the wrong impression about what I believe is true or not. I don’t think there’s any doubt that human caused climate change is occurring, is having worse consequences than in years past, and is an urgent issue to address.

            That said, I don’t believe in bans. I don’t think banning ICEs is fair or just. I don’t like EVs personally and don’t have much desire to own one. I think they are objectively worse for anyone who doesn’t live in a dense city surrounded by charging options. I don’t accept on faith the proclamations of those who have been promising better batteries right around the corner since I learned to drive 2 decades ago. I think behavior can be nudged but should not be coerced.

            It is also an indisputable fact that CO2 from light duty vehicles in the US represents less than 1/6 of the total emissions. I resent the media’s implication that switching to EVs will magically cure everything, or that gas car drivers are solely responsible for the current situation. That attitude lets a lot of big companies off the hook.

            Up thread, I advocate for a carbon tax. I wouldn’t exactly be happy to pay more for gas, but I would if that’s what it took. Taking the choice away entirely is un-American, and counterproductive.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “If we wait for ‘the market’ to change things, it will eventually happen, just at a much later date.”

            Maybe, maybe not. If BEVs become heavily politicized and the Democrats overplay their hand trying to make it happen and you end up with President Zombie Calvin Coolidge in 2028 then what happens to the adoption timeline?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “President Zombie Calvin Coolidge in 2028”

            Dare I ask whom might that be?

  • avatar
    random1

    Everyone pretends ICE aren’t subsidized. There’s all manner of subsidies, tax write-offs, and all manner of direct and indirect support of the oil industry that comes out of the federal budget, before we even get to the well known health and environmental externalities. Gasoline nearly everywhere in the world is subsidized, as it “helps everyone”. That’s true as far as it goes, but still winds up being market-distorting.
    Rather than banning ICE, just make fuel cost represent the real cost, which would include a carbon tax IMO. I think we’d see EVs become suddenly extremely competitive.
    But it’s all a pipe dream, never gonna happen.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    The Biden admin has a two prong approach for climate change.

    Building dozens of nuclear power plants for our battery cars and home heat pumps and resistance heat.

    Bombing the hundreds of new ChiCom coal power plants.

    Right?

    • 0 avatar
      multicam

      I’d be down for more nuclear power. Just don’t build them near fault lines or places where hurricanes and/or tornadoes are common.

      Also, if climate change is the existential threat that it supposedly is, at what point will democrats support going to actual war over it? If it’s going to lead to our demise as a species then maybe it’s worth invading China over. Seriously, if people who deny that anthropomorphic climate change will lead to global catastrophe are equivalent to holocaust deniers- then it’s apparently an issue worthy of another world war. Let’s do this *rolls up sleeves*

      Ha, right. Like that would happen.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Yep. Time to put up or shut up on this. Is it the biggest threat mankind is faced or not. But the last time we were throwing around words like that over 400k Americans died defeating that threat so I think this may require a wee bit more sacrifice than just raising someone else’s taxes. Let’s see if you people possess the courage of your convictions.

  • avatar
    Norman Stansfield

    You’re putting the cart before the horse: what good are EV’s if you need a carbon source for power generation? Wind and solar don’t count; see Germany. So, if you want to zip along in your golf carts, you better figure out a way to deploy nuclear plants country wide.

    • 0 avatar
      CoastieLenn

      The tax paying masses are easier to force to conform than the energy sector. The Fed doesn’t need to worry about the cart if the the horse has no choice but to pull. Your sentiment exactly is one of my own personal biggest gripes about this whole push. Rather than set up infrastructure beyond the macro level “EV Charging Stations” that everyone likes to revert the argument toward, seldom does anyone touch on just how strained our current power grid is WITHOUT all these forced EV’s running around.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      “You’re putting the cart before the horse: what good are EV’s if you need a carbon source for power generation?”

      Low-carbon electric generation is a hard problem.

      But the overall problem is easier to solve when your car will run nuclear one day, solar the next, and hydro the next.

      Also, EVs are cleaner than gas cars, even if you run them completely off of coal.

      But I don’t run completely off of coal. My local electric generation mix (according to my power company) is:
      6% Renewable
      15% Nuclear
      79% Fossil fuel

      When that changes, though, I don’t have to buy a new car. If I drive to Vegas and charge my car on Hoover Dam hydro-power, the car will run just like it does on 79% dino-fuel at home. An EV is agnostic about where the energy comes from, just so long as it’s within the voltage/amperage/hz specs of the charger.

      If I really want to be self-reliant, I can invest in my own off grid solar+battery system and make my own fuel. Or I can buy electricity. That’s my choice — and a choice I don’t have with chemical fuels.

      Us electric car hippies asked this same question you’re asking 30 years ago, and EVs are still an improvement.

  • avatar
    redapple

    52% of World pollution comes from the 25 biggest cities. 23 of the 25 are in China

    GDP / CO2 tons generated (USA V China)= Shows China pollutes 3.2 more CO2 per GDP dollar generated.

    But, it is the USA and Europe that must move NOW to BEV and radically change auto manufacturing and electric generation.

    Then oil prices will Crater. And China, India and Russia WILL BURN MORE. This will give them a tremendous economic benefit.

    Makes perfect sense to me.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      Even though I’m a big EV fan, I recognize that oil is really useful stuff.

      It makes sense to conserve our oil now, so that we have it later — after all of the other nations have burned theirs.

      And, if we happen to find a more efficient way to move people and goods around without using the stuff, that’s win too.

      We need to put the conservation back in conservative.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @redapple – from a strategic perspective, keeping fuel for military use makes the most sense. The military is a massive consumer of fuel.

      China does not have the oil reserves for domestic consumption let alone run it’s military. China is choking on it’s own pollution. That puts stress on the populace and forces it’s regime to put resources into population control.

      Russia’s economy is comparable to that of Australia. Other than nukes and cybercrime, it isn’t a serious threat.

      India is also choking on it’s own pollution. Eventually they will have to control the populace or improve living standards. India and China does not get along. That’s a strategic benefit for the west.

      Any benefits gained by competing countries is only short term.

    • 0 avatar
      TCowner

      redapple
      July 13th, 2021 at 4:48 pm
      “52% of World pollution comes from the 25 biggest cities. 23 of the 25 are in China

      GDP / CO2 tons generated (USA V China)= Shows China pollutes 3.2 more CO2 per GDP dollar generated.

      But, it is the USA and Europe that must move NOW to BEV and radically change auto manufacturing and electric generation.

      Then oil prices will Crater. And China, India and Russia WILL BURN MORE. This will give them a tremendous economic benefit.”

      YES – and you’ll absolutely never see these facts on CNN or other like news outlets. THIS is the problem. And they will be eating our lunch.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @TCowner – what part of “strategic oil reserve” you don’t understand?

        India’s petroleum self-sufficiency is 17.9 per cent of the total consumption. India needs imported oil.

        China’s dependency on foreign crude expected to remain in excess of 70%. China does have enough oil to be self-sufficient in the short and intermediate term but prefers to import oil. That’s strategically a smart move.

        Russia is self-sufficient but has the GDP of Australia. For some odd reason, mostly cold-war rhetoric, Americans still views Russia as some sort of economic threat.

  • avatar
    punkairwaves

    Will consumers who are not evangelists be happy with EVs once they actually start owning them? A friend got a good deal on a used Nissan Leaf. He installed a 220V charger in his garage himself, lives in a city with a mild climate and used the car exclusively for commuting to work. When it came time for a new battery, he replaced the Leaf with an ICE subcompact.

    An upper Midwest Chevrolet dealer was not impressed with the Bolt his employee picked up in the winter from the nearest big city. The driver was on edge as the battery discharged at an alarming rate. It would not have completed the trip if he had left the heat running.

    Forcing dealers to sell cars they know are wrong for their customers and using sticks to steer people into cars that end up not impressing them will backfire.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      @punkairwaves:
      “Will consumers who are not evangelists be happy with EVs once they actually start owning them?” Tesla alone has sold over a million cars with about half a million in 2020 alone. You think those sales are only evangelists and not consumers?

      ” friend got a good deal on a used Nissan Leaf. ”
      A Leaf is a decade old design and in no way is representative of modern EVs with liquid cooling, double the battery gravimetric density, and 3 to 4 times the range.

      “Forcing dealers to sell cars they know are wrong for their customers”
      Dealers are not the ones to decide what the right car is for their customers. It’s the customer. The dealers are not forced to sell any particular car. If they don’t like the vehicles a particular manufacturer wants them to sell, they can give up their dealership. Any dealership that starts thinking they are the ones to determine what kind of car their customers should drive should have their dealership terminated.

      • 0 avatar
        punkairwaves

        So what would you do if you were a salesman? The driver had a white knuckle ride getting the Bolt to the dealership. If my elderly aunt was shopping for a RAV4 replacement and planned on making rural round trips of a similar length, would you steer her to a Trax or Equinox instead of the Bolt she spotted on the lot?

      • 0 avatar
        jalop1991

        ” friend got a good deal on a used Nissan Leaf. ”
        A Leaf is a decade old design and in no way is representative of modern EVs with liquid cooling, double the battery gravimetric density, and 3 to 4 times the range.

        – – –

        you VERY CONVENIENTLY ignored the rest of that about the Leaf: “…and used the car exclusively for commuting to work.”

        Everything you said is nonsense in the actual context of that owner’s Leaf usage.

        He got the perfect EV commuter car for the exclusive purpose of commuting to work–and discovered he’d rather have an ICE vehicle.

        He discovered than an ICE vehicle was preferable for the exclusive purpose of commuting to work.

        • 0 avatar
          Astigmatism

          Not really sue how “used the car exclusively for commuting to work” changes the fact that the Nissan Leaf is a clown car tin box based on decade-old tech. I’ve had friends who didn’t like their garbage cars, too. What about it?

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Why would he spend 32k plus (MSRP on a Leaf) to commute. A Versa is roughly half that.

        The Leaf is fine for what it is, but as is the case with all the entry level EVs, there are way better choices for 30k plus.

        • 0 avatar
          jalop1991

          “Why would he spend 32k plus (MSRP on a Leaf) to commute.”

          he bought a USED ONE.

          Jesus Christ, don’t any of you actually read the things to which you’re responding??

          He bought a used one, not a new $32K one, for the exclusive purpose of commuting. Then he decided he would rather have an ICE for the exclusive purpose of commuting.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    Fine, the debate is over. What is the appropriate CO2 Level to stave off the predictions of those Scientists and what legislation is required to get there?

    Answer the question and implement the changes. If at the end of the day you are no longer able to afford an automobile this is not my problem or concern. Demand better mass transit from your elected officials.

  • avatar

    What we experiencing is the Societal collapse of Western civilization. For those who do not know what that means I refer to the article to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse.

    One of thee causes is a climate change (and former civilizations did not have cars or airplanes emitting CO2), pandemic (a.k.a. plague or COVID-19), demographic dynamics – like migration to Rome or Sea people during Bronze Age collapse, internal strife (like blue vs red, civil war), economic dead end (structural collapse of socialist system) and so on.

    “A combination of internal strife, economic weakness, and relentless invasions by the Germanic peoples pushed the Western Roman Empire into terminal decline. The last Western Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was dethroned in 476 by the German Odoacer, who declared himself King of Italy.”

    No amount of regulations or taxes will help if Western Civilization is destined to die. And it did die many times in the past. Of course if you study History in public schools instead of CRT.

    BTW because of the drought there is a shortage of grain all over the world. Prices will go up.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      “the Germanic peoples pushed the Western Roman Empire into terminal decline. ”

      They sold them overpriced chariots that broke down immediately after the warranty was up.

      “Of course if you study History in public schools instead of CRT.”

      I prefer LED or OLED to CRT if I’m going to study history. Especially 4k and at least 27 or 28 inch.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Have you noticed. We’ve head decline of travel, industry, etc due to COVID… Decline of emissions. And yet – record temperatures

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @troll #1

        Um…it takes years for the process to reverse. Covid didn’t change current C02 levels. It just caused a pause that slowed worsening.

        @troll #2

        What does critical race theory have to do with any of this?

        You mention migration. You and troll #1 both exhibit xenophobia. If climate change is not mitigated, we will see migration to the northern and southern ends of the planet on an epic scale. Mother Russia won’t have the firepower to stop it.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          We should funnel all those migrants straight into BC and build refugee camp next to your house.

          Climate change will never be mitigated because it is happening independently of what humans do, or if they exist at all.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Troll#1 – “Climate change will never be mitigated because it is happening independently of what humans do”

            The evidence suggests otherwise. You gonna get troll #3 aka @Ecomaster to joint the party?

            It’s fitting that you push an anti-climate change agenda since Putin and company believe that “they” will see a net benefit from global warming!

            You gotta kiss the azz of the dude who controls the polonium.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Putin controls everything. Your dude can’t even control bowel movements. And he wants to control what, the nature? Good luck.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Troll #1 – “Putin controls everything”

            Once again you kiss his azz. Mustn’t bite the hand that feeds you!

            LOL

          • 0 avatar

            @Lou_BC. Emotionally upset? There are 20 ways to defeat negative feelings. Just ask me how.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Inside Looking Out

            Too funny. You sound like an infomercial. I’m very positive the both of you are trolls except you aren’t as stupid as troll #1.

          • 0 avatar

            @Lui from BC. Thank you for asking. Losing control of your emotions is never a good thing. It makes responding effectively to the situation impossible. So it’s crucial to develop a skill set that enables you to loosen the tight grip your emotions may have on you. Just ask me how.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @troll#2 – “Thank you for asking.”

            WTF?

            I didn’t ask you for anything.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Lou,

          we, trolls, are little people with big hammers.

  • avatar
    Dartdude

    One thing Tim is that a car purchase is a personal one. It is a choice of all Americans to make without govt interference. Our biggest problem is we starting to have a nanny govt telling us (WE THE PEOPLE) what’s good for us. So your thinking is that there should be one vehicle made that the govt approves of. As far as climate change goes we are along for the ride. God is in charge of that no matter what we do.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      We already have a nanny govt telling us what’s good for us. Cars are required to have certain active and passive safety equipment; they are required to undergo crash testing; there are limits on their emissions; etc. I personally don’t think that it’s anyone’s biggest problem that the government won’t allow you to buy a new car without turn signals, but YMMV.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “As far as climate change goes we are along for the ride”

      Within the laws of nature, mankind as a whole or individually has “free will”. We can chose to ignore science and drive off a cliff or change direction. We can sow seeds in fertile ground or barren ground. Our choice.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    Alright, end of all that and still…no numbers for where we need to be with respect to CO2 emissions per capita and no numbers for where a carbon tax needs to be set to achieve that. Still just some mythical number that will only really effect the wealthiest among us. Sell crazy someplace else. If those Scientists are correct (and per Mr. Healey, we aren’t debating that), then the pain is coming.

    Or is this a “pass the tax to find out how high it is” sort of deal. You say a Carbon tax is the way. Fine. What is the number?

    And as has been pointed out, this will not be punitive to the people you think it will. They will play ball and behave because they can afford to. As for those of you rolling in that 2003 3800 powered Buick with more warning lights on the dash than the Apolo 13 Command Module, well hope a bus stop is nearby.

    The pain will hit everyone, you can pretend it won’t, and this is something you can fix by influincing a few behaviors that are easily changed, but if those Scientists are correct you can’t and the poorest among us will be lucky to have access to shelter and food and if you are out West all the money in the world may not buy you a glass of water. Time to pay the piper.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Art Vandelay – you raise very valid points.

      What will be more painful and expensive? Reducing CO2 emissions or trying to survive on our current trajectory?

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        Your “reducing CO2” will only work until one day when some rednecks will hang some rulers. Right now Paris being burned for the mandatory vaccination for some people. Imagine forcing people to be poor when they knew that their parents lived pretty good.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          The poors are not my problem Slavuta. They can follow the laws here or face the consequences. Everyone is going to take a haircut assuming these projections are correct which we, per Mr. Healey aren’t debating anymore.. Those currently on the edge of poverty will take financially among the smallest, though they will likely feel it the most.

          So come on, tell us how big that haircut has to be. Quit sugar coating it. Sometimes medicine tastes bad.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        I don’t disagree @Lou. So we are throwing around a “carbon tax” as the primary fix here. Fine. All I am asking for is where we need to be with respect to CO2 Emissions and how big that carbon tax has to be to get us there. I don’t feel that I should be expected to blindly support a massive overhaul of our tax structure with zero inkling of where the endstate is.

        Furthermore, if these projections are now ground truth I see zero reason that things like ICE bans are not on the table. I’m sorry, but nobody has a Constitutional right to own a car. Maybe we treat them like concealed carry in “may issue” states. If you can demonstrate a valid need for an internal combustion powered car then you can receive a permit after you receive your training on the importance of maintaining said ICE vehicle and using it responsibly and paying the associated fees.

        The language that has been used in this debate (fate of the planet, fate of mankind, millions starving) would seem to call for a response on that scale to include, if necessacary the use of the US Military to enforce compliance at a global level.

        Cars are but a tiny piece of that grim equation. We aren’t debating it anymore, so time to take the bull by the horns and quit pretending this is simply a matter of raising taxes on other people. That is part of it. Many automobile owners today no longer being able to afford that luxury (yes, luxury…not right) is also part of it. Smaller homes and costlier food is part of it.

        But after all, we are talking about nothing less than the fate of the planet, so lets get to it!

        • 0 avatar
          CoastieLenn

          @ Art, we have a current President who was VP during an administration that, to a certain degree, believed cell phones were a “right”, not a privilege, and he’s basically renewing every vow and program crafted during his Vice Presidency for better or worse. What makes you think that the ideology does NOT exist within our current governmental structure that they will not lay the groundwork to frame the personal vehicle as a “right” in some form or fashion? If cell phones with data plans were bought and paid for by you and I to distribute to the lower income masses, why wouldn’t cars, or at least huge subsidies for cars? Shouldn’t be, but likely will be.

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            Oh sweet Lord, not this tripe again.

            https://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Ah, we are all into facts now. Cool. I had hoped we’d get here. So what are those factual numbers in regard to per capita carbon emissions to stave off the predictions of the Scientests and the cost of a carbon tax to get us there. I am ready to jump on board and do my part, as we all must given the stakes it seems and as the debate on causes is over it is time to move on to solutions! But nobody seems willing to answer as to what that part is. Or is the answer simply more?

            Science is a numbers and data driven deal and we have been collecting data and modeling climate for decades now so I am certain someone can at least ballpark those figures. Thanks.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Read an intteresting article on Nature that discussed population growth and it’s effect on growing CO2 emissions. As this is a thing and we are discussing a tax scheme that rewards good environmental behavior while disuading bad behavior, I mean call me crazy here…but why are we increasing the Child Tax Credit? Don’t we need to be discouraging population growth among other things responsible for our current situation? The Science is settled here…why are we encouraging people to have more children? This is further stressing our fragile world!

            I see the light now! If only others would come to realize the sacrifices we must all make (and you know…tell me exactly what it is) so I can do my part!

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            #Art Vandelay

            “The IPCC report, which the U.N. climate science body released Oct. 8, 2018, revealed that the best path to limiting warming to an increase of 1.5 C by 2100 involves cutting net human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 45% by 2030 (12 years after the report was published) and then cutting emissions further to net zero by 2050”
            Are We Really Running Out of Time to Stop Climate Change?
            By Rafi Letzter

            That’s drastic and just to limit the temperature increase.
            What’s the other option? Mass starvation, mass migration and wars over arable land.

            Unfortunately politicians view the future in election cycles and most people view the world payday to payday.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Yes @Lou, and I have no reason to doubt that…I’m sure their methodology is solid and I’m in a Scientist trusting mood today because Tim Healy has ended all debate. So why is it that people are laboring under the delusion that all we need to do is tweak the tax code a bit hera and there?

            This isn’t a restructure the tax code problem, this is a restructure everyone’s way of life problem. Tell me how you meet those numbers otherwise? So let’s dispense with the BS here and call it like it is. To tackle this problem very few posters on here are going to be able to maintain there standard of living. For many of them, the decline is going to be steep. No amount of feel good BS about Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos paying more is going to change that. They’ll keep right on driving and flying in their rockets but many people here won’t. I’m not in that air. I figure I’ll be able to keep most of what I have because I’ve been in mad pay off debt mode, but I’m going to feel pain here.

            Let’s just dispense with the “if only the wealthy paid their fair share garbage”. Because that’s low hanging fruit. They would have to pay and then some. Then they are coming for the middle class. And as to that lower half, they don’t have to come for them…the new economic reality is going to eff them like the sisters on Andy Dufrane at Shawshank.

            Just rip the band aid off and get on with it. There is no avoiding the pain at this point. Unless there is another way aside from simply taxing the pi$$ out of those you feel can afford it. I mean you can do that, but don’t act like it is going to do anything more than give you something to grin a little about while you are riding the bus missing the old days.

            But thank you for some actual numbers and a data driven argument not based on good old fashioned class envy.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            The thing is @Lou, I know deep down inside those Scientists are correct. Oh sure they may miss the date by a few years, but that stuff is happening.

            I’m just too big of a cynic to believe our Government is in any way, shape or form actually trying to make any meaningful steps. I’m like the Scientist in War Games. I know the bomb is going to hit so I’m just going to make myself as comfortable as I can until it does

            Maybe Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy will save us. God knows I have more faith in them then basically any President in my lifetime.

            But the thing is, if your answer is to take more of my money just because you think I have it, you are either an idiot or even more cynical.

            So let’s get busy fixing it with real concrete plans beyond feel good tax deals or leave me alone. I’m willing to pay, but I need to know how much and what I’m paying for. I don’t think that is unreasonable. Apparently I ask too much.

            Sooo…..leave me alone.

          • 0 avatar
            jack4x

            What tells me that no one is really serious about reducing temperatures is that there’s no real discussion/research into geoengineering.

            If this is truly a civilization threatening catastrophe, why should any options be off the table? Especially ones like simulating volcanic eruptions that have basically a 100% chance of succeeding.

            I fear the answer is that a technology-driven solution with minimal sacrifices doesn’t “punish the responsible people” enough. There’s no opportunity to “make a better world” if people can basically go on doing what they have been indefinitely without consequences.

            Of course, no human society in 10,000 years of history has ever willingly lowered its overall standard of living for the common good. That doesn’t stop the idealists from expecting this time to be different. Result will either be that we destroy ourselves, or sacrifice quality of life unnecessarily by restricting solutions to what is “morally acceptable” to the right set of people.

            I’m basically with you, Art. If society decides that I, and people like me, need to pay more to solve climate change, I’ll understand because the alternative is probably worse. But I’ll be d amned if I’ll accept this very real crisis just being used as an excuse to redistribute wealth.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Art,

          government(s) simply designed another scheme to float on top in their geopolitical game. Western countries are facing big issues – depopulation. Yes, there is not enough birth by locals so there is a process of population replacing by foreign people.
          Economically, they are just not as powerful in relation to others as before. In Asia countries with huge populations appear. And they now possess all necessary technology not to be dependent on the west. These populations want to live good. And some, like China have global ambitions. And these countries will need steel, mortar, fuel and other things to achieve their goals. To produce it, they will emit huge amounts of CO2
          So, the West is now pushing a new agenda of climate change, to slow down these developing nations. Because eventually they will overtake the west as most powerful global players. China is already there. And China now has 3-child policy.
          Think historically, West became power only relatively recently. Dig 1000 years back, China was most powerful state (known as dynasties). Mongols, Persians, Ottomans, etc. Only by the end of 18th century West became more powerful.
          so, don’t be surprised. Everything turning back on its normal way and not vise versa. Asians are going to dominate again. And this is what this new “Climate Change” push is all about. West is afraid of Yuan replacing Dollar and Euro.

          • 0 avatar
            CoastieLenn

            @astigmatism- read your link. In 2008, the FCC (under the Obama administration) SET UP A CORPORATION (read: they started a company) that’s deemed a 501C3, funded by other corporations and companies (that’s important, keep reading). From the article- which conveniently doesn’t delineate between the Fed or the USF taking taxpayer dollars: “The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as “long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers.” ******** The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill.”*******

            So, from your own point, while the Fed didn’t collect tax dollars thru conventional means to fund this, dollars from Tax payers (or cell phone subscribers) DID actually fund this project whether they wanted to or not. Weird, now private companies that are contributing to a government welfare program are taking your money, sending it to the government, and then the government is using it to fund the welfare program administrated by a company the Fed set up.

            How is that not basically the exact same thing as “taxpayer funded”?

            Also, another shining example of how factcheck is trash and proof that “Obama phone” is an appropriate name.

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            “In 2008, the FCC (under the Obama administration)”

            I’m just going to leave that there and be done with it.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @troll #1

            Xenophobia again.

            Now climate change is a strategy to stiffle the “East”?

            You mean stiffle Russia since your leader believes climate change will benefit him.

            The logical thing to counter low birth rates is properly regulated immigration.

            I know you hate immigration since that would “brown out” white supremacist ideology.

          • 0 avatar
            CoastieLenn

            @astigmatism: While I am sorry you felt the need to “be done with it”, I also thank you for pointing out my error. Up until your rather snide remark, I had never needed to research the FCC. Your belittlement made me improve my knowledge and I’m man enough to admit my mistakes. I never knew until I was today years old (38) that the FCC is entirely funded by regulatory fees.

            Thank you.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            Lou,

            I see what Inside Looking Out was talking about. You should ask him. Yea. Go ahead. You need it.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Troll#1 and Troll#2 tag teaming. You work out of the same farm?

  • avatar
    manbridge

    Wow, reading this misinformed dribble from the miseducated Healey makes one wonder what happens next. People who live in fear of “what ifs” based on politicized “science” should be roundly ignored. They base their lives on the injustices of the past (guilt) and future crises (fear). Sad really.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • dwford: Apple is not used to actually making it’s own products, so they are trying to replicate that model with...
  • dwford: I’d say that all those pre-orders for the Lightning are from regular consumers, not fleets. Yeah, of...
  • DenverMike: OK how much is this incentivizing and other irrational crap going to cost me? I rarely go to highly...
  • Lightspeed: I spun a friend’s Miata on a right hand kink going over a slight rise. Fortunately zero damage, but...
  • Tele Vision: I still love the idea of 100% torque at 0 RPM but, with only 144,000 Kms on my 2010 F-150, I won’t...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber