What I have stated is that they aren’t going to help as much as people think. You may have taken that to mean that we shouldn’t bother even trying, but I never stated that.
One actual issue is that people think one or two personal magic bullets are all that’s needed. That they can switch their ICEs for EVs and that’s their contribution to the issue done and dusted. Clearly, not the case, though there are a lot of people who do seem to think that way, even potentially in this thread.
You were downplaying the US govt killing all incentives to EVs. You gave that a big “meh”. Let’s focus on what moves the needle. And, what is that?
There isn’t some big needle mover for the common person. The common person should do what they can and EVs are a HUGE part of what they can do. If not, what do you suggest the common person do?
I’d say work on their politicians. I know that’s also a long shot but the thing is - the common person has little ability to do much on their own. That’s why, at least in theory, we have governments and a democracy.
A single politician can do much more than thousands of regular people, because that’s their job - to best represent thousands of people. If, for whatever reason, all those common people don’t elect a group of committed, effective ones, well, that’s “finger in dike” territory.
I understand the need for each person to feel like they are personally contributing, but that’s mostly a way of pushing the responsibility and blame to individuals. It’s rather insidious how that sort of PR works. Even slight improvements at the corporate or government levels would overwhelm what people can do individually.
And if it’s a matter of what people can do at home anyway even knowing it’s limited - EVs are fine and all but things that will move the needle as much or more? Simply going to more efficient EVs rather than gas guzzling SUVs, doing basic home energy efficiency improvements and behaviors, energy efficient appliances. Again, not a whole lot by themselves but still more than replacing their ICEs with EVs.
And I’m saying this as somebody who had a hybrid 15 years ago only to replace it with a full battery EV a couple years ago. I recognize the impact is limited, so I realistically assessed the environmental impact as small and not the top priority in choosing to go that route.
EV incentives were a government/political solution to reduce CO2 emissions from transportation. They are removed, and it gets a “meh”.
Many of the government based solutions work on an individual level. If we pressure our politicians to remove subsidies to fossil fuel companies, and then it actually happens, that is going to show up as increased prices at the gas pump. However, people using less gas is going to be an individual decision. Every gas user is going to have to decide to pay more for gas or replace their car with something that uses less (or no) gas.
We had a systemic policy (EV incentives) that was pushing lots of individual decisions in a direction that reduced carbon emissions, and that policy was removed. That is a problem.
No, the idea they would be do something significant towards either saving the world or avoiding the destruction of the world got a “meh”.
I liked the incentives, but I disapprove of making them out to be greater than they are. Yes, they can be one part of a comprehensive solution that will keep the earth habitable for human beings, but some folks treat EVs as if they alone will take care of much of the issue than they will. And that’s a problem.
If that’s the only low hanging fruit we can manage, fine, but having them or not is a far cry from stopping people who want to “bring about the destruction of earth” - literally that phrase was used.
The only thing that is going to save the planet[1] is to stop burning fossil fuels. We burn fossil fuels for many applications. Some of those applications have good alternatives, some do not. We need to switch where we can, while continuing to research and engineer where we can’t. At the moment, EV is one of the main areas where a suitable alternative to fossil fuels exists.
(And yes, I know about all of the reasons that EVs still use fossil fuels and release carbon, but they still use and release less than non-EVs, and as electricity production and heavy industry are de-carbonized, that will also reduce the carbon footprint of EVs.)
The incentives are a part of the solution. If we eliminate all parts of the solution because they are not the whole solution, then we end up with nothing.
The people who want to destroy the earth are fighting against each part of the solution. Don’t help them.
excluding still science fiction geoengineering things ↩︎
The planet will survive just fine. Life will survive just fine. If the P - Tr extinction event didn’t do it I don’t think anything short of the sun going red giant will. It’s just us and the critters we love will be long gone.
Sorry, should have been more explicit. That was shorthand for “save a planet that is habitable by humans, and most existing flora and fauna, in a way that allows our current standard of living to continue.”
Is that better?
Not really, though. By your definition
we need to do a hell of a lot more than just stop burning fossil fuels. In fact, our current standard of living is a huge part of why the Earth is on a plunge into uninhabitability. It is not obvious we can change course enough to conserve even a significant fraction of our current standard of living.
I personally am not under the illusion that driving an EV will amount to much. Still, it is a far more pleasant experience than driving an ICE, and I feel like at least I am doing something. Something that is within my power.
No, that’s nonsense. There are only a few ways that humans are net contributors to global warming. Fossil fuels are by far the #1, with concrete a distant second.
We can stop the problem entirely by just not burning fossil fuels. And there is vastly, vastly more available clean energy on Earth than we need to sustain a current standard of living for everyone.
EVs play a significant role, but there’s obviously much more to do beyond that.
I knew what you meant and as just tweaking your word choice. Having no children, deep down inside I don’t care what happens after I die. I just don’t want people pissing on my grave.
Global warming is a small part of the habitability problem, which is far too complex to go into without massively hijacking the thread.
Well, I got my adapter about 3 weeks later, not six months, so yay Hyundai 
I tried it out at a Tesla supercharger for the first time this weekend and it worked like a charm. It’s not something I plan to use often, but having access to the supercharger network is game-changing for longer trips. I’m very pleased about it.
What is the cost to use the Tesla supercharger?
This supercharger cost $0.49/kWh. There is no set-up/joining charge or anything.
From what my Tesla owning friends say, that can vary with time of day, so keep that in mind as well.
//i\\
This is correct. Not all chargers but enough of them that it can matter. This is to reduce usage at high volume sites. Different charger stations have different prices too. The ap will show you.
That sounds expensive, but might be worth it on a long trip.
BTW is the cost the same for Tesla and non-Tesla vehicles?
It is expensive, but comparable to other (non-Tesla) fast chargers I’ve used. For example, the ones closest to me from Electrify America are $0.56/kWh. I try very hard not to use fast chargers except when absolutely necessary because they are expensive.
I don’t know if there is a cost difference between Tesla/non-Teslas on their chargers. Next time I am at one, I’ll ask a Tesla driver who is charging at the same time
I believe it is the same for all EVs. I think you do have to setup a Tesla account and add a credit card, but there’s no cost to do that.
You can see the Tesla supercharger map at the link below, and click on any charger to see the rates. The few I clicked on all say, “Charging Fees for All EVs”. Some are about $0.50/kWh 24/7, but others drop to $0.32/kWh from 9pm-8am. For some reason the one in Aspen doesn’t list a price.