6 ms·

It looks like the OBBB ended the CAFE standards which have been blamed for the increase in car sizes over time (e.g. https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-cars-ar

It looks like the OBBB ended the CAFE standards which have been blamed for the increase in car sizes over time (e.g. https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-cars-are-getting-huge-are-fuel-economy-regulations-to-blame https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-cars-are-getting-huge-ar...). Also personally although I would prefer that people purchase EVs rather than ICE cars, I think it’s best not to subsidize cars at all, since it only benefits those who can afford cars, and it’s better to encourage other forms of transit.

parineum 1y ago
> since it only benefits those who can afford cars Ostensibly, it would benefit everyone by helping to address climate change.
- smegma2 1y ago
  True, I would be interested to hear to what extent EV subsidies sway people who are already planning to buy a car vs people who would otherwise not buy a car. The former category is almost definitely larger but to what extent?
  - parineum 1y ago
    If automakers are losing billions in revenue as a result, quite a few apparently.
  - vrighter 1y ago
    not american, but we had decent ev grants here. Never really factored them in. I needed to buy a new car one day, and the only small one i could find was electric. The grant on top of that was just a happy bonus, i would have bought it anyway (and it's an electric quadricycle, which has a smaller subsidy, I could have gotten an actual car for cheaper, wibh a bigger subsidy too). Before my old car crapped out, I never even thought I'd buy electric or not, I was just planning to buy the one i liked best. The subsidy had no sway over me.
- adrianN 1y ago
  Subsidizing other forms of transport probably helps climate change more per dollar.
  - bigbadfeline 1y ago
    Big diesel trucks pollute much more than everything else. Nat gas isn't even considered around here. Maybe in California?
Larrikin 1y ago
If there isn't a subsidy that makes building subways cheap it doesn't help anyone.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago
  Whatever it is, subsidies are a corrupt way of financing manufacturers, the money goes to them and a few car buyers. If you want to help an EV manufacturer, buy a stake in it, so the general public gets something in return for their investment.
  - appease7727 1y ago
    This take is precisely as juvenile as "taxation is theft"
cyanydeez 1y ago
Small footprint EV should still be subsidized. You have 30 years of polluters, especially egregious. SUVs in the used market. The goal of subsidies is to shape long term outcomes where individuals must react to short term.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago
  Subsidies are pure corruption, there is no argument in favor of corruption. Buy a stake in the manufacturer, control their prices, same as some utilities companies, if the taxpayers pay, they should get their stake's worth as a group.
  - cyanydeez 1y ago
    No, conceptually. Yes, like everything in government, they can be twisted. Your logic is fill in the blank, so we should just not have government. If you put crooks in charge, of course, everything becomes a con.
    - bigbadfeline 1y ago
      > Your logic is fill in the blank True, in short consider Tesla, jack up the prices as much as the market can bear, as usual. A bunch of people, who don't need subsidies, get them to buy at luxury prices. Little to no investment in low cost, mass production, chase capitalization instead. Environment... who cares, large trucks still pollute the most. LNG bad, etc. > If you put crooks in charge, of course, everything becomes a con. That's true too, but some schemes are easier to con than others. I don't see why we should act in ways that help the cons. > so we should just not have government. That's not my opinion. Utilities are government controlled or used to be anyways, I consider that necessary.
RainyDayTmrw 1y ago
Public transit is ideal, but electrification of private cars is still significant harm reduction.

parineum 1y ago

> since it only benefits those who can afford cars Ostensibly, it would benefit everyone by helping to address climate change.

smegma2 1y ago
True, I would be interested to hear to what extent EV subsidies sway people who are already planning to buy a car vs people who would otherwise not buy a car. The former category is almost definitely larger but to what extent?
- parineum 1y ago
  If automakers are losing billions in revenue as a result, quite a few apparently.
- vrighter 1y ago
  not american, but we had decent ev grants here. Never really factored them in. I needed to buy a new car one day, and the only small one i could find was electric. The grant on top of that was just a happy bonus, i would have bought it anyway (and it's an electric quadricycle, which has a smaller subsidy, I could have gotten an actual car for cheaper, wibh a bigger subsidy too). Before my old car crapped out, I never even thought I'd buy electric or not, I was just planning to buy the one i liked best. The subsidy had no sway over me.
adrianN 1y ago
Subsidizing other forms of transport probably helps climate change more per dollar.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago
  Big diesel trucks pollute much more than everything else. Nat gas isn't even considered around here. Maybe in California?

Larrikin 1y ago

If there isn't a subsidy that makes building subways cheap it doesn't help anyone.

bigbadfeline 1y ago
Whatever it is, subsidies are a corrupt way of financing manufacturers, the money goes to them and a few car buyers. If you want to help an EV manufacturer, buy a stake in it, so the general public gets something in return for their investment.
- appease7727 1y ago
  This take is precisely as juvenile as "taxation is theft"

cyanydeez 1y ago

Small footprint EV should still be subsidized. You have 30 years of polluters, especially egregious. SUVs in the used market. The goal of subsidies is to shape long term outcomes where individuals must react to short term.

bigbadfeline 1y ago
Subsidies are pure corruption, there is no argument in favor of corruption. Buy a stake in the manufacturer, control their prices, same as some utilities companies, if the taxpayers pay, they should get their stake's worth as a group.
- cyanydeez 1y ago
  No, conceptually. Yes, like everything in government, they can be twisted. Your logic is fill in the blank, so we should just not have government. If you put crooks in charge, of course, everything becomes a con.
  - bigbadfeline 1y ago
    > Your logic is fill in the blank True, in short consider Tesla, jack up the prices as much as the market can bear, as usual. A bunch of people, who don't need subsidies, get them to buy at luxury prices. Little to no investment in low cost, mass production, chase capitalization instead. Environment... who cares, large trucks still pollute the most. LNG bad, etc. > If you put crooks in charge, of course, everything becomes a con. That's true too, but some schemes are easier to con than others. I don't see why we should act in ways that help the cons. > so we should just not have government. That's not my opinion. Utilities are government controlled or used to be anyways, I consider that necessary.

RainyDayTmrw 1y ago

Public transit is ideal, but electrification of private cars is still significant harm reduction.