Honestly, dumping tons of money into tech that has so many problems may not he the best idea.
How do you think technology matures? It took years for automobiles to become reliable like they are today. It’ll take years for EVs to become mature, but the only way to do that is to work on them now and improve as we go along. The absolute wrong thing to do is throw out the entire concept because they aren’t perfect now.
Agreed. The innumerable problems that coincide with fossil fuel based technology means it’s a terrible idea to continue to subsidize it at taxpayer expense.
OK, let’s just get rid of cars altogether, then.
You can pry my car out of my cold dead fingers
you’re a dumbass. The advocates for a car-free society want to make it so that owning a car is not mandatory because alternatives will exist.
It is not mandatory now, although it is convenient.
It’s effectively mandatory by design of U.S cities if you want to hold any kind of stable job that pays well enough.
It’s almost like any new technology starts out with problems that get solved through time, money, and resources.
…that shouldn’t be provided by the government.
So you want to end subsidies for oil and gas, for farmers to grow corn that gets turned into ethanol, or just subsidies for EVs? Let’s be clear here.
So I take it you’re against the government subsidizing science research in general? “The government shouldn’t fund new technology” is a stupid and destructive position. We’d be living in the 1800s if it were up to solely the capitalistic market. I mean, the first broadly effective antibiotics that are responsible for saving probably hundreds of millions of lives at least only exist because of people working in government-funded labs, under government-funded universities, for the government. Why should the environment be treated like it doesn’t matter to our civilization?
Are you vegan or something? Without government subsidies, beef would cost Americans like $25 per pound. But you don’t want subsidies on anything?
What problems
