you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

This isn't exactly correct or truthful. A new EV Bolt is only $4k more than a new Camry, and that difference is quickly made up from the gas saving, especially when gas is $4+ a gallon.

And when you want to accelerate adoption of something, you incentivize it. The US already spends $40+ billion in direct subsidies for oil (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-hidden-ways-the-government-rigs-the-market-in-favor-of-fossil-fuels/) Imagine instead of giving that to oil companies, you used that to accelerate the development of EV's and their roll out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    A comparison of subsidized oil would better be served by having the government subsidize clean energy production and infrastructure. It's not like the government is handing out subsidies to buy gas cars 🤷‍♂️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    The government is doing that already (IRA law, although a lot of that was pulled back by the current administration). And like oil had, you would need continuous investment, which hasn't happened, so a discounting program to incentivize purchasing seems like the best of both worlds. It seemed pretty effective as well at kicking off early adoption, which was then hampered by inflation, high prices, and government divesting from EV investment.

  • source
  • parent