Electric Cars Are An Expensive Scam

[Elderberry]

The Federalist by David Harsanyi June 29, 2023

If EVs were really an innovation, the state wouldn’t have to bribe and force companies to produce them.

The left likes to treat skeptics of electrical cars as if they were Luddites. Truth is, making an existing product less efficient but more expensive doesn’t really meet the definition of innovation.

Even the purported amenities and technological advances EV-makers like to brag about in their ads have been a regular feature of gas-powered vehicles going back generations. At best, EVs, if they fulfill their promise, are a lateral technology. 

Which is why there is no real “emerging market” for EVs in the United States as much as there’s an industrial policy in place that props up EVs with government purchases, propaganda, endless state subsidies, cronyism, taxpayer-backed loans, and edicts. The green “revolution” is an elite-driven, top-down technocratic project.

And it’s increasingly clear that the only reason giant rent-seeking carmakers are so heavily invested in EV development is that government is promising to artificially limit the production of gas-powered cars.

In March, Joe Biden signed an executive order to “set a target” for half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 to be zero-emission. California claims it is banning combustion engines in all new cars in about 10 years. So carmakers adopt business models to deal with these distorted incentives and contrived theoretical markets of the future.

More: https://thefederalist.com/2023/06/29/electric-cars-are-an-expensive-scam/

[Smokin Joe]

Far be it from me to laud the EV. I live in a climate where such could well cost a person their life, even if the charging infrastructure was present.

However, there may well be markets where these vehicles could be appropriate or even preferable. In areas where drives are short, where there is a well developed power grid, where emissions become a problem, where population densities are high, they may have their place, if the climate is right. By 'climate', I'm not referring to politics, but mean annual temperatures. Their utility, beyond hauling people and very light cargoes, is limited. They are no panacea, but more of a niche market vehicle.
Mandates, subsidies, other set-asides from the public coffers should never happen nor have happened, imho. Let the market decide.

[berdie]

Far be it from me to laud the EV. I live in a climate where such could well cost a person their life, even if the charging infrastructure was present.

However, there may well be markets where these vehicles could be appropriate or even preferable. In areas where drives are short, where there is a well developed power grid, where emissions become a problem, where population densities are high, they may have their place, if the climate is right. By 'climate', I'm not referring to politics, but mean annual temperatures. Their utility, beyond hauling people and very light cargoes, is limited. They are no panacea, but more of a niche market vehicle.
Mandates, subsidies, other set-asides from the public coffers should never happen nor have happened, imho. Let the market decide.

I can see where in an urban area where driving is limited to toodling around town, it might work...if there is sufficient electricity availability and charging stations .  But as far as I can see...that is not the case today.

It is once again putting the cart before the horse. Especially since the powers that be seem intent on crashing electricity. I keep seeing in my mind multitudes of inoperable cars sitting on the freeways. And I also see people that are ordered to evacuate due to an upcoming natural disaster (hurricane, etc.) stranded, and in turn stranding others.