Unlike you, I (probably unsurprisingly) have no issue with the government banning the production and sale of certain goods. I think the massive pollution caused by cars is more than enough to justify all sorts of intervention, including the requirement that they all CBE cars be replaced by EV ones.
But you have to factor in the environmental cost of producing EVs, the cost of setting up the infrastructure for them, the social cost of elevated car prices on the poor... there's a lot to consider, and 2032 seems very close.
Now, if you show me a spreadsheet that proves it's a significant net gain for the environment and isn't an overt burden on people beyond their sense of liberty to purchase gasoline engines, I'm all for it. But until then, I'm cautious.
And above all else, I am really, really confused about the decision to push this in an election year. This will become "Biden wants to take away your cars" just as easily as walkable cities became "the government will shoot you if you walk more than fifteen minutes away from your home." More easily, even. This one has some truth to it.
I'm with you. I am all for environmentally responsible policies and the government's and leader's responsibility to see that gas reliance is a no go longterm.
But a) this will please hardcore Greens but piss off most people, b) as you noted, infrastructure is lacking and I have seen friends get almost stranded due to the lack of charging stations and such; and c) aren't biofuels more efficient and easier to convert over to as a bridge point?
I, too, would like to see a spreadsheet.
- 20/03/2024 11:52:36 PM
96 Views