Subsidizing sales of EVs (ie. I pay for my neighbor’s new EV because I want cleaner air) does make environmental sense.
Subsidizing production does not have the same positive environmental impact, mainly because factories in China pollute more than factories, say, in the EU (due to different environmental laws), but also because moving finished products from China to the “west” obviously pollutes more than moving just those components that would need to be sourced from China anyways (eg. batteries).
As for the “makes economic sense” part… IDK: I guess that mainly depend on your political stance.
Personally, I don’t like that both sales and production subsidies have the effect of moving money from the poor to the rich, but other people may focus on different effects (eg. more production = more jobs) and support subsides.
In case you wonder: my take is that, instead of incentivizing adoption and production of EVs, one should disincentivize internal combustion vehicles by adding taxes to them (which, in a sense, aren’t really taxes but just charging for the very real environmental costs society as a whole will have to pay for your shiny SUV).
Anyone not doing this is an idiot and a climate terrorist.
You should really think twice before spewing judgements… and also avoid misusing words like “terrorist” because, when misused this way, it only conveys that you don’t like someone, dulling your message instead of strengthening it.
Subsidizing production does not … from China anyways (eg. batteries).
I’m asking why the EU isn’t subsudising their domestic EV industry and starting a competition in electric propulsion technology. That would benefit everyone, except maybe the oil lobby.
one should disincentivize internal combustion vehicles by adding taxes to them
Why not both? And preferrably better subsidies for public transport / cycles / footpaths, etc.
avoid misusing words like “terrorist” because, when misused this way
If killing a handful of people is terrorism, what would you call trying to kill the entire human race (along with thousands of random other species)? ‘Terrorist’ is, if anything, too mild a word to describe such filth.
Subsidizing sales of EVs (ie. I pay for my neighbor’s new EV because I want cleaner air) does make environmental sense.
Subsidizing production does not have the same positive environmental impact, mainly because factories in China pollute more than factories, say, in the EU (due to different environmental laws), but also because moving finished products from China to the “west” obviously pollutes more than moving just those components that would need to be sourced from China anyways (eg. batteries).
As for the “makes economic sense” part… IDK: I guess that mainly depend on your political stance.
Personally, I don’t like that both sales and production subsidies have the effect of moving money from the poor to the rich, but other people may focus on different effects (eg. more production = more jobs) and support subsides.
In case you wonder: my take is that, instead of incentivizing adoption and production of EVs, one should disincentivize internal combustion vehicles by adding taxes to them (which, in a sense, aren’t really taxes but just charging for the very real environmental costs society as a whole will have to pay for your shiny SUV).
You should really think twice before spewing judgements… and also avoid misusing words like “terrorist” because, when misused this way, it only conveys that you don’t like someone, dulling your message instead of strengthening it.
I’m asking why the EU isn’t subsudising their domestic EV industry and starting a competition in electric propulsion technology. That would benefit everyone, except maybe the oil lobby.
Why not both? And preferrably better subsidies for public transport / cycles / footpaths, etc.
If killing a handful of people is terrorism, what would you call trying to kill the entire human race (along with thousands of random other species)? ‘Terrorist’ is, if anything, too mild a word to describe such filth.