Governments Encouraging or Pushing Us into EV/Green Consumption?

[kyphysics]

The Biden Administration's Inflation Reduction Act has billions of dollars in provisions for building out EV infrastructure in the U.S. (like charging stations/electric grid).

There have long been incentives (often tax breaks or fiscal spend) for "going Green" and disincentives for old "polluting" energy (Big Oil) companies. Part of this is understandable, given attempts to curb global warming.

However, I do wonder if such attempts risk or are already starting to go beyond incentives and "friendly nudges" to being practically coercive.

I saw this latest news item and thought it was interesting:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/22/aus...-loans-for-new-diesel-and-gasoline-cars-.html

Australian bank to scrap loans for new diesel and gasoline cars as country looks to increase EV uptake

• While there will be no more loans for new combustion engine vehicles — including hybrids — from 2025, Bank Australia will continue to provide them for used ones.
• Australian government says it’s “significantly behind the pack when it comes to electric vehicles.”

Granted, most countries - especially under-developed and emerging markets - are "behind the curve" on carbon emissions and EV uptake. So, I don't think the entire world is necessarily going to get super draconian all of a sudden. Poorer nations literally cannot afford to "Go Green," because coal and oil are much cheaper to use.

Still, it does seem weird to not be willing to lend to someone wanting to buy a gasoline car (new). I wonder if these sorts of measures will grow in the coming years and, if so, where the line is between merely incentivizing vs. heavy-handed coerciveness?

What is someone has solar panels on their home, donates to Green causes, recycles, carpools, etc., but just has a passion for gas guzzling monster pick-up trucks? They have a huge love for them as a hobby.

 

[jack action]

We have to buy cars with anti-pollution (and safety) technologies since the 70's which are required by law and add thousand of dollars to the price tag. I think we are way past "heavy-handed coerciveness" that hit poor people.

Also, we used to be able to buy a car without a radio or decorative hubcaps, and now it is very difficult to find one without alloy wheels, A/C, and electric windows. It might not be by law, but I feel coerced to pay for stuff I don't necessarily need.

 

[russ_watters]

What's the difference between a "helping hand" and coercion? IMO it's important to remember that direct subsidies are always a zero sum combination of the two: in order to give one person the "helping hand", that money has to be taken from others. Often it is a lot more people with smaller amounts of money on the negative side, but that just makes it harder to see. So to me there is no line just degrees of intensity.

People tend to forget or purposely downplay the negative side.

The only real different option/approach is an outright ban. These happen too.

 

[kyphysics]

We have to buy cars with anti-pollution (and safety) technologies since the 70's which are required by law and add thousand of dollars to the price tag. I think we are way past "heavy-handed coerciveness" that hit poor people.

Also, we used to be able to buy a car without a radio or decorative hubcaps, and now it is very difficult to find one without alloy wheels, A/C, and electric windows. It might not be by law, but I feel coerced to pay for stuff I don't necessarily need.

Hmmm...I'll need to think more about this point. Interesting.

Yeah, some safety stuff is mandated by law. Good point.

 

[kyphysics]

The only real different option/approach is an outright ban. These happen too.

Yeah, a ban would be super heavy-handed.

They could maybe de facto do it indirectly by taxing gas/diesel car buyers such a high amount that basically only the super rich could buy them. Then, simultaneously, give all Americans making ...say, less than $200,000/year a tax break if they buy EVs.

You could argue that is technically not force, but the effect would be you'd be losing lots of money not buying an EV and buying a gas monster truck or whatever. ...We'll see how things go in the next 10-20 years. It will get interesting.

 

[hutchphd]

They could maybe de facto do it indirectly by taxing gas/diesel car buyers such a high amount that basically only the super rich could buy them. Then, simultaneously, give all Americans making ...say, less than $200,000/year a tax break if they buy EVs.

Government duty is to make redress for the true cost of the polluting item. Capitalism offers no mechanism to "provide for the common good" unless it helps the bottom line. Such assessments usually extend a few years out (not exactly the seventh generation). The government should, through taxation (or incarceration), make sure that true costs are reflected.
Imposition of such costs are part of the government charge to preserve the natural inalienable rights of every citizen. (this from Mr. Jefferson and the boys of summer)
Later the U S Constitution spells it out pretty well _
in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

 

[kyphysics]

Government duty is to make redress for the true cost of the polluting item. Capitalism offers no mechanism to "provide for the common good" unless it helps the bottom line. Such assessments usually extend a few years out (not exactly the seventh generation). The government should, through taxation (or incarceration), make sure that true costs are reflected.
Imposition of such costs are part of the government charge to preserve the natural inalienable rights of every citizen. (this from Mr. Jefferson and the boys of summer)
Later the U S Constitution spells it out pretty well _
in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

Good thoughts.

What's interesting about "Green" incentives is that it's not like an immediate binary threat we're protecting against. If the government mandates seatbelts, that's due to the immediate harm it could cause w/o one. Even if an adult didn't want one, a 10-year girl would obviously benefit from wearing one. Altho, car insurers would also more or less boot you if you didn't want to wear one too.

Mandates of COVID masks were also due to immediate dangers.

Carbon pollution is like a gradual thing. So, it's been interesting how interventions have worked. ...not binary like you MUST stop all carbon emissions now...but more like gradual and "soft" incentives/disincentives.

Should we reach a truly frightening global warming crisis, I wonder if governments then put their foot down more harshly with mandates/laws/bans.

 

[jedishrfu]

For years as an example, Singapore has had a policy of limiting the age of cars to no more than ten years old in an effort to limit pollution.

Now they’ve also moved into the EV arena with a 2030 migration plan.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sus...-green-plan-electric-vehicle-ev-ready-2547936

Economic incentives are used to make the push work.

 

[kyphysics]

For years as an example, Singapore has had a policy of limiting the age of cars to no more than ten years old in an effort to limit pollution.

Now they’ve also moved into the EV arena with a 2030 migration plan.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sus...-green-plan-electric-vehicle-ev-ready-2547936

Economic incentives are used to make the push work.

They also make car ownership, in general, very expensive. Lots of people prefer not to own a car at all and use public transit instead. It has to do with traffic congestion for the 6 million people that live there in an island-state the size of Houston, Texas. It's very crowded with only vertical space to build.

It works. Make car ownership super expensive and it disincentivizes all but the rich to buy and use them.

 

[gmax137]

For years as an example, Singapore has had a policy of limiting the age of cars to no more than ten years old in an effort to limit pollution.

Really?! What happens to the cars when they exceed ten years? Please don't say they are scrapped.

Is there any analysis comparing the pollution created by manufacturing a new car, compared to the 10 years added pollution by operating the old car? Does the incremental reduction in emissions (operating a 2022 car vs a 2012 car, for example) justify junking the older car?

As a side issue, are the 'obsolete' cars just exported somewhere else, where they are allowed to operate freely in our shared atmosphere?

 

[jack action]

Please don't say they are scrapped.

The politically correct term is "recycled".

 

[jedishrfu]

Singapore is a big exporter of used cars throughout SE Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_in_Singapore

Aftermarket

Because Singapore does not have a domestic automobile industry and thus has a very small domestic market for remanufactured and reconditioned auto parts, it has become an especially important aftermarket for businesses exporting automotive parts and accessories. This is magnified by high automobile turnover, a preference for new parts, and high demand for "accessories, car-care products, prestige items, and new spare parts". In fact, Singapore has become a major automotive components manufacturing base, as several leading multinational corporations (MNCs) have established international procurement offices as well as their Southeast Asia distribution centres.[17]

Singapore as an automobile exporter

The peculiarities of Singapore's car market has made Singapore the second largest exporter of used cars in the world (approximately 100,000 cars exported per year) after Japan.[citation needed] Singapore exports its cars to many countries, including African countries. Used cars are often exported to other countries with right-hand driving, but there are exports to left-hand-driving countries as well.[18] New Zealand allows used cars previously registered in Singapore to be imported without any modifications.[19]

This is due in part to the reduction in the costs of COE and PARF between 2000 and 2005, which has incentivised owners to purchase new cars before their ten years are up. Previously, the COE and PARF represented around 80% of the cost of a medium-priced car like the Honda Accord. With the COE and PARF less expensive than in the past, in some cases the yearly drop in the COE and PARF rebate becomes significant compared to the pre-tax (OMV) price of a new car. Furthermore, with the PARF rebate starting to diminish after a car is five years old, the net amount of credit (similar to resale value or trade-in value) compared to the OMV becomes less favourable for owners of older cars. In contrast, in countries with low taxes, the most economical ownership strategy is to keep a car as long as possible until repair costs exceed a new car's depreciation costs or financing costs.[20]

 

[DaveE]

Should we reach a truly frightening global warming crisis, I wonder if governments then put their foot down more harshly with mandates/laws/bans.

Which may be too late or require more restrictive measures than if they are proactive. Free market capitalism simply doesn't work because externalities are not properly accounted for. This is similar to the tragedy of the commons problem. This is one of the essential functions of government in modern civilization, to force people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do.

So, the question isn't if governments should require things, but, are the specific impositions appropriate. This is the realm of politics, and argument is both necessary and unavoidable. I like the idea that half the people should think you're doing too much and the other half should think your doing too little; i.e. no one is satisfied.

However, this is difficult with technically complex issues that the general public doesn't understand. For example 5G wireless roll out, climate change, or vaccination. As a technically inclined sort, I think at some point we all have to admit that we can't, won't, or don't want to, figure it out and then defer to bonafide experts. I fear this puts me in a minority of the voting public in the USA.

--- Sorry, end of diatribe ---

 

[strangerep]

I saw this latest news item and thought it was interesting:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/22/aus...-loans-for-new-diesel-and-gasoline-cars-.html
[Bank Australia...]

NOTE: "Bank Australia" is just a small bank owned by its customers. It is not the central Reserve Bank of Australia, nor one of the 4 major retail banks (Commonwealth, Westpac, NAB, ANZ).

 

[kyphysics]

For years as an example, Singapore has had a policy of limiting the age of cars to no more than ten years old in an effort to limit pollution.

Am I missing something in that this only relocates "overall" pollution? In other words, Singapore is reducing local pollution, but not necessarily overall global levels, b/c it's just exporting those cars to other places where they'll still be used.

On a separate note, I think that's one argument against Green and ESG initiatives being hypocritical that I am sympathetic to. The argument goes that many countries who limit their own carbon emissions "contribute" just as much, because they export their pollution elsewhere and still consume just as much "stuff" derived from "old energy."

For example, Americans buy and use just as much stuff that has a carbon footprint as before. It's just that those things are created in places like China, India, Vietnam, etc. where coal and oil are still abundantly used to manufacture them. Thus, it's hypocritical to say we're "doing our part."

No, we've just exported our pollution.

We place our polluting factories in places like Mexico and China, while also utilizing their cheaper labor, and then sell those products back to Americans. Unless we stop consuming products derived from polluting energy sources, the argument goes that we're not really going "Green." We are in name, but in actual practice, it's not having that big of an effect.

 

[kyphysics]

Is there any analysis comparing the pollution created by manufacturing a new car, compared to the 10 years added pollution by operating the old car? Does the incremental reduction in emissions (operating a 2022 car vs a 2012 car, for example) justify junking the older car?

As a side issue, are the 'obsolete' cars just exported somewhere else, where they are allowed to operate freely in our shared atmosphere?

I had the same questions.

 

[russ_watters]

Really?! What happens to the cars when they exceed ten years? Please don't say they are scrapped.

Is there any analysis comparing the pollution created by manufacturing a new car, compared to the 10 years added pollution by operating the old car? Does the incremental reduction in emissions (operating a 2022 car vs a 2012 car, for example) justify junking the older car?

The US had an incentive program during the 2009 recession that was a little more on point. Cars being replaced had to have a fuel economy of less than 22mpg and be replaced with cars getting >22mpg. The cars traded in were destroyed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System

 

[DaveE]

Is there any analysis comparing the pollution created by manufacturing a new car, compared to the 10 years added pollution by operating the old car?

Well, sort of. OK, not really addressing your point, but still...
That stuff is out there. Mostly lead by the EU. This "green certification", for example:
https://www.sofeast.com/knowledgebase/15-key-eco-certifications-for-green-manufacturers/

The problem is capitalism. If your "green" product costs more will you be able to sell it on Amazon? Or get people to invest in your company? Not for big unregulated markets, IMO.

No car manufacturer would put catalytic converters in their cars if they thought they didn't have to. Those things are really expensive. OTOH, having seen the difference in the LA smog between 1977 and 2000; I think they're great and every new car should have them.

The smog tests for older cars in CA, NY, Japan, Singapore, etc. are real, because people see the value. OTOH, it may take 150 years to get those done in Wyoming.

BTW, I have a 30 year old Toyota Pickup with 160k miles (in CA) that has amazingly low smog numbers. Age isn't the real metric, it's testing that's needed for durable goods. Places like Japan and Singapore have opted for using age as a substitute, which maybe OK, on average, it avoids the complexity and expense of testing old cars, but it wouldn't be good for me and my old truck.

 

[Hornbein]

They also make car ownership, in general, very expensive. Lots of people prefer not to own a car at all and use public transit instead. It has to do with traffic congestion for the 6 million people that live there in an island-state the size of Houston, Texas. It's very crowded with only vertical space to build.

It works. Make car ownership super expensive and it disincentivizes all but the rich to buy and use them.

I have been to Singapore 15 years ago and can tell you that most of the island is forested. Singapore Island is eight times the size and one tenth the population density of Manhattan Island. Singapore is a third the size of Houston, since Houston is 640 square miles (!).

I recently lived in Tokyo and it is quiet, uncrowded, clean, and inexpensive for an American. No one believes this. It is a very nice place. Excellent for bicycling. I want to return.

 

[jack action]

Which may be too late or require more restrictive measures than if they are proactive.

For me, the keywords in your sentence are "may be" . Nobody can be certain of the outcomes. There are no scientific experiments to validate the possible scenarios because there are just impossible to make.

I don't think forcing everyone to follow the ones with the greatest credible fears is necessarily the best way to go. If this was true, every life form would use the same strategy for surviving. The truth is that we need diversity such that at least some of us will be ready to face whatever will happens.

So, the question isn't if governments should require things, but, are the specific impositions appropriate.

There you go: How can anyone knows what is appropriate? One example I like is the indigenous fire practices. For thousands of years, people in America would regularly set fire to their land in a controlled manner. Then experts chimed in and decided it was bad. They had all the arguments. How can destroying things be good, right? We even had Smokey the bear simplified those "technically complex issues that the general public doesn't understand" ^[13]. Here is a summary of the results:

In many areas, cultural burning took a hiatus during the era of fire suppression in the 20th century due to land management agencies’ enforcement of differing practices.

[...]

As European colonizers spread across the United States, fire suppression became more common. Without cultural burns, organic matter built up, putting forests at risk of devastating fire. Suppression, along with urban development and climate change has led to more large, uncontrolled fires that can quickly spread through areas with lots of underbrush. Now, there is better understanding that the Indigenous peoples’ tradition of human-controlled burns is a valuable way to reduce out of control wildfires.

Experts are also people that can have unreasonable fears. Blindly following them is not an appropriate way to go.

The problem is capitalism. If your "green" product costs more will you be able to sell it on Amazon? Or get people to invest in your company? Not for big unregulated markets, IMO.

This is absolutely not true. If people want it, it doesn't matter if it cost more. Nobody ever thought people would have paid for bottled water when it is available freely pretty much everywhere. Yet, they do. Ironically, this "need" is also driven by an unreasonable fear that water from a faucet is unsafe. I should be grateful that drinking water from a faucet hasn't been made unlawful and being forced to buy bottled water.

No car manufacturer would put catalytic converters in their cars if they thought they didn't have to. Those things are really expensive.

Again, not true. Selling expensive things means bigger markup, hence more money. Big companies LOVE regulations that force everyone to add mandatory safety items to their products. First, they make a profit from it, second, it makes it more difficult for small companies to compete with them because they have difficulties getting the expertise in all those areas that the big companies got over years, if not decades.

Also, catalytic converters are on cars because people want non-polluting cars and they were told such item does the job. The best example is the Volkswagen emissions scandal. There were people furious at the company because their cars were polluting more than what were told when they bought them. Not only because they didn't get what they paid for, but because they wanted that feature from their cars.

If people would want a toaster included with their car, big companies would be thrilled to sell a toaster (for a profit) every time they sell a car.

 

[kyphysics]

The US had an incentive program during the 2009 recession that was a little more on point. Cars being replaced had to have a fuel economy of less than 22mpg and be replaced with cars getting >22mpg. The cars traded in were destroyed:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System

We were at my uncle's house for a BBQ a few Saturdays ago and some sales dude showed up on the drive-way saying he could lower his electric bill long-term if he got solar panels. The guy said something about the government covering the cost up to $9,000. Left a flyer w/ info., as most of us just wanted to get back to hanging out/eating. . . .

IF true, that's actually a good program. The only thing is, I wouldn't want to rely solely on solar, as it's seasonal and tempermental in nature. I'd still want electricity as a back-up option in case of bad weather. But, if Uncle Sam is paying...could be a good hybrid option.

Strolling through my parent's neighborhood of homes, I'd guess less than 1% of people have solar panels. Same with my uncle's neighborhood.

 

[kyphysics]

I have been to Singapore 15 years ago and can tell you that most of the island is forested. Singapore Island is eight times the size and one tenth the population density of Manhattan Island. Singapore is a third the size of Houston, since Houston is 640 square miles (!).

I have an uncle, who works for the U.S. Department of Defense as an arms contractor (he does negotiations and signs off on final deals) in Singapore. He likes it - he's there temporarily on three-year renewable contracts (on his second stint) - but still wants to return to the U.S. He likes the freedom of being able to drive a car and cannot stand the humidity there.

He DOES love the cheap hawker stand food (literally $3 for what would cost $10 in the U.S. for a plate of delicious food - better than U.S. too).

I read in the past somewhere Singapore was about the size of Houston...weird...maybe my memory is off!

I wouldn't mind living there. Very modern. Very clean. Very safe. Very "Green" oriented.

 

[jedishrfu]

I think you’re right. It’s about the size of Houston although Houston has a bit more land area.

here is a comparison

http://comparecities.org/en/compare/Singapore-Houston