Ars Technica Article on Possible Upcoming Funding Changes for EVs and EV Infrastructure

[Tony Burgh]

I remember the outcry about little Japanese cars in the 70’s and 80’s. Same political rhetoric. Technological progress will go on with or without the US. By 2000, a lot of retired steelworkers were driving Nissans and Toyotas.

Sponsored

 

[broncoaz]

I remember the outcry about little Japanese cars in the 70’s and 80’s. Same political rhetoric. Technological progress will go on with or without the US. By 2000, a lot of retired steelworkers were driving Nissans and Toyotas.

The Japanese cars proved to be better and cheaper than the US made cars. When EV’s are meeting similar metrics of better/cheaper and have enough of a range/charging speed combination to permit 10 minute fuel stops every 300-400 miles the adoption rate will go up. The perception of range anxiety, especially in trucks towing trailers, is keeping a lot of people in ICE. I have to answer stupid questions from friends and family all the time, almost always about range or charging.

 

[Scorpio3d]

It's not just EV technology. If we don't continue to invest in EVs, we'll concede all battery technology to the rest of the world; we'll concede the entire automotive industry (when the rest of the world is operating spaceships with wheels and we're still building slightly-improved Model-Ts, the rest of the world will stop buying from the US automobile manufacturers); we'll concede improvements to the electrical distribution grid; we'll concede most space energy technology (most spacecraft operate on photovoltaics and batteries and this will be true for decades); there are dozens and dozens of other technologies and industries.

We'll concede the future.

Amen to that!

I also find it quite interesting that they are talking about taking away California’s ability to make its own emissions laws, but on other things they say they are giving the power back to the states??
Typical political double talk. This happens on both sides.

 

[Mach Turtle]

Serious question here. What is stopping the residents of states that have "banned" ICE vehicles from buying one used from out of state?

As far as I know, nothing will stop residents of these states from buying ICE vehicles in state either; the bans will be on sales of new vehicles. Someone please correct me if this is wrong.

That having been said, I'm not a fan of bans either. I think better policy would be to stop subsidizing the ICE supply chain (far more than the EV ecosystem has received) and let the market decide; members of this forum know how most people will decide in an unbiased free market informed by facts, not FUD. But we also know that one solution does not fit all and different people's needs should be served by the solutions that work best for them.

 

[sotek2345]

As far as I know, nothing will stop residents of these states from buying ICE vehicles in state either; the bans will be on sales of new vehicles. Someone please correct me if this is wrong.

That having been said, I'm not a fan of bans either. I think better policy would be to stop subsidizing the ICE supply chain (far more than the EV ecosystem has received) and let the market decide; members of this forum know how most people will decide in an unbiased free market informed by facts, not FUD. But we also know that one solution does not fit all and different people's needs should be served by the solutions that work best for them.

I would add to this appropriately pricing/taxing to cover the environmental damage for ANY vehicle purchase (based on pollution from manufacturing) and ANY fuel/energy purchase (based on pollution from creating/generating it and using it). Tragedy of the commons has been happening since the advent of the automobile and needs to be addressed. Really this should be done for EVERYTHING, not just vehicles.

 

[broncoaz]

I would add to this appropriately pricing/taxing to cover the environmental damage for ANY vehicle purchase (based on pollution from manufacturing) and ANY fuel/energy purchase (based on pollution from creating/generating it and using it). Tragedy of the commons has been happening since the advent of the automobile and needs to be addressed. Really this should be done for EVERYTHING, not just vehicles.

Didn’t they try this in the early 2000’s under the guise of “carbon taxes”? Where did all that money go? A tax to repay the “tragedy of the commons“ sounds a lot like a wealth redistribution scheme that can be skimmed off to enrich the politicians while not actually helping the common plebs.

 

[sotek2345]

Didn’t they try this in the early 2000’s under the guise of “carbon taxes”? Where did all that money go? A tax to repay the “tragedy of the commons“ sounds a lot like a wealth redistribution scheme that can be skimmed off to enrich the politicians while not actually helping the common plebs.

I don't recall them ever getting implemented, but I wasn't really following politics much then (in college / just starting out). That is what we need though. Carbon tax and dividend. Collect it and pay it back at a flat rate to everyone.

 

[broncoaz]

I don't recall them ever getting implemented, but I wasn't really following politics much then (in college / just starting out). That is what we need though. Carbon tax and dividend. Collect it and pay it back at a flat rate to everyone.

PM me your address so I can send you your flag. ?

Socialism only works until you run out of other people’s money.

 

[sotek2345]

PM me your address so I can send you your flag. ?

Socialism only works until you run out of other people’s money.

It isn't about the redistribution for me at all, it is about reducing carbon. The redistribution just makes it have a chance of getting passed.

If I were king for a day, everything would have a carbon tax equal to the cost of removing that carbon from the atmosphere, and all of the money would go towards doing exactly that. No economic or political system works once the crops start having widespread failures.

 

[GoodSam]

Socialism only works until you run out of other people’s money

"The trouble with Capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Or "the trouble with Capitalism is that eventually you run out of a healthy society as the politicians have all been bought."
Simple slogans like Margaret Thatcher's miss the complexities of societies that are interdependent, yet support individual freedom. When there is a Commons (air, water, land) that must be shared with accountability, laws are made and a whole new group of folks are needed, like politicians, lawyers, police, military, etc.
A clear eyed person can see the data of how fast the atmosphere is changing around the planet (33% increase in CO2 in 100 years) and accountability is that we cannot have certain people or countries thumbing their noses at our families. So removing carbon (and other greenhouse gases (remember the ozone holes, as well)) the best way possible should be strived for by our society.

 

[broncoaz]

"The trouble with Capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Or "the trouble with Capitalism is that eventually you run out of a healthy society as the politicians have all been bought."
Simple slogans like Margaret Thatcher's miss the complexities of societies that are interdependent, yet support individual freedom. When there is a Commons (air, water, land) that must be shared with accountability, laws are made and a whole new group of folks are needed, like politicians, lawyers, police, military, etc.
A clear eyed person can see the data of how fast the atmosphere is changing around the planet (33% increase in CO2 in 100 years) and accountability is that we cannot have certain people or countries thumbing their noses at our families. So removing carbon (and other greenhouse gases (remember the ozone holes, as well)) the best way possible should be strived for by our society.

Sure, and I do understand the carbon issue. For some reason none of the “treaties” to date have done anything significant about India and China’s emissions. If the pain is felt equally by all then I can see an argument, but when you target only the traditionally first world countries and let China and India with lax environmental laws and 2.9 of the 8.1 billion inhabitants of Earth continue polluting it seems agenda driven. What’s next, climate reparations for what the boomers and Greatest Generation did?

 

[broncoaz]

Yep, China is doing great on reducing their CO2 emissions ? They are 35% of the world emissions.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/239093/co2-emissions-in-china/#:~:text=Carbon dioxide emissions in China 1960-2023&text=China released 11.9 billion metric,of countries where emissions increased.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-overview

https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023/the-changing-landscape-of-global-emissions

 

[ccough]

Some data (links/citations provided):

https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2024

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

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

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statis...s-emissions-of-a-mid-size-bev-and-ice-vehicle

___
A few points:

China is currently the top emitter, emitting at 2.68 times the rate of the US (top figure).

It is observed that the US has reduced GHG emissions by around 17% since the peak around the year 2000. China has seen a 311% change in GHG output since 1990.

Transportation accounts for 29% of the GHG emission in the US (second figure). Of this, 57% is derived primarily from consumer "light vehicle" use (third figure). This use is, by some margin, the largest output in transportation sector and is ~16.5% (roughly 1/6) of total GHG emission in the US. Given total US emission of around 6,000 Mton-equivalent, personal transport accounts for roughly 1,000 Mton-equivalent emissions.

Comparing lifetime BEV to ICE usage, there is a ~50% reduction in greenhouse outputs (if a central value is assumed for EVs) (fourth figure). If all light-duty vehicles were BEVs, the US could reduce GHG emissions by 500 Mton-equivalent (to ~5,500 Mton-equivalent, if all other sectors hold).

This would offset 64% of the 784 Mton increase in GHG from China from years 2022 to 2023. This reduction exceeds GHG emissions of many smaller and/or less developed countries.

---
Of course, weighing such data in policy making making is a complex issue dependent on a number of personal and external "weighting" factors.

(*Post edited to get figures in correct positions)

 

[broncoaz]

Yes, they HAVE high emissions, as a country, but by populace they are still less than the US. And that does not in any way refute what was said, they HAVE implemented more green technology than we have, they ARE following the treaties better than we do, they are also growing and increasing their industrial base. This is far more than "oh look, big number, must be bad". This is an exceedingly simplistic look with zero depth on the subject that proves that just because you can quote some facts does not mean you have identified the truth.

I thought you might respond with that. The graph on the left below is per capita, notice China and India are increasing while we and other countries are decreasing. Their population is 4x ours meaning every small increase in emissions makes a much larger impact on global emissions. As India becomes more industrialized I would expect their emissions to also grow significantly. I have stated in other discussions that investing in having developing nations skip the coal and dirty fossil fuels portions of industrialization will have a greater impact on global emissions than severely restricting US and EU emissions where we burn things cleaner.

With respect to China following treaties: there is no transparency with respect to the numbers reported by a totalitarian regime, the numbers are what they say that are. They were so transparent with respect to Covid as it spread to the rest of the world and killed between a reported 5.9 million and estimates as high as 18 million. That same government engages in currency manipulation and is in the midst of a real estate crisis, both of which have impacts on the world economy. Forgive me for not trusting their government and climate numbers.

This is an interesting video on their housing crisis:

 

[The Weatherman]

They (China) have moved their auto industry to between 40-50% of new car sales being EV’s/Hybrids. Ice manufacturers are fleeing like never before due to the collapse of ICE.

The US and Europe are blocking and taxing Chinese car imports, which are primarily EV’s, for fear of their adaptation and that causing the collapse of our own auto industry. And yet the same people are doing everything in their power to squash our own EV option.

if we as a country don’t do something different it will not end well for anyone!

Sponsored