Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
You missed the point of the article, that governments paying rebates for electric vehicles is a pretty inefficient way of reducing emmisions, which you can find in the conclusion. The point is that governments have limited moeny to spend on emmisions reductions, and paying rebates like this is fairly ineffective. Put it towards converting coal plants, building nuclear, building solar farms, whatever...but these rebates are not a good way to spend limited money.
The other underlying issues is that electric vehicles aren't affordable to be a sustainable industry without subsidies, which should be concerning becuase the current model isn't sustainable, and isn't attainable for the vast majority of consumers. There is no such thing as an a economy electric car. They are just to expensive to build.
|
I think you missed the point. The subsidy is encourage adoption, not to act as an efficient drag on emissions. The efficient drag on emissions will come with broad adoption of the cleaner technology.
Electric vehicles are not affordable yet because there is not widespread adoption. Wide spread adoption will not happen until there is infrastructure. There will be no infrastructure investment until there is widespread adoption. That is where subsidies come into play. Encourage adoption to then encourage investment.
The only reason electric cars are expensive to build is the lack of supply channels for parts. Once demand for those parts increases more and more companies will start supplying parts, increasing competition and dropping the cost of parts. All of this is basic economics is it not?