|
I’m not necessarily saying it’s equivalent subsidization at this given moment, I’m saying that it isn’t out of line in my mind when you’re talking about subsidies for electric cars and the requisite infrastructure to hope to compete with ICE options with a one hundred year head start, much of which was helped by subsidies all along the way. If EVs are going to be a player, they’re going to need help. Think of the early adopters of EVs. Who’s going to buy a car that has no fueling infrastructure, that you can only reliably fuel overnight at home, and is limited to 100-200 mile round trips if you’re lucky? Rich people who can buy a new gadget or toy. The incentives helped sell the earlier expensive options so that the development could be made more affordable in the future. Now you can buy one for the price of the average vehicle. New tech pretty much always starts as an option for only the wealthy and elite. Since this technology was something that pointed to a cleaner transportation option, the government felt that it was worthwhile to boost demand for it. I don’t think that was incorrect personally.
Electricity production in the US is still about half fossil fuel, so those subsidies for fossil fuels apply to helping with electricity costs also. When you have a greener energy option from the electricity provider, even with subsidies, the cost is usually higher, so the take rate isn’t going to be as high. Again, newer tech that’s more expensive to produce, at least for the time being. To switch more people over to cleaner options we will have to put some extra tax money into it. I know some don’t agree that it’s the right thing to do, but it is required in order for it to succeed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|