America's EV Transformation is in peril

Your right about one thing, if you buy everyone an EV the adoption rate will go up. Let capitalism take its course. People will buy EVs when the EV price is lower than a ICE vehicle. We are very close now. No EV credits needed.

@Dan Roberts First, we are all complicit in the existential crisis we seem to barreling toward in terms of climate. Raw capitalism has known the earth was undergoing increasingly unwelcome climate changes due to elevation of the levels of Co2 since the Carter administration in the 1970s ...

but then Reagan won. With an ally in the white house, the multinational oil industry - you know the purpose of the OPEC cartel is to fix prices. In a macro kind of way, it is certainly convenient that a foreign sovereign has 'control' of the world oil price. Some folks on this side of the pond are very chummy with those on that side but you have to know those on that side call the shots in those relationships. Their goal is to use their power to keep making more money for as long as they can ... and delay is their game.

Externalizing the unbanking of untold trillions of tons of Co2, the bulk of the current accumulation comes from the last 50 years - when we all knew of the problem. So, the slow dance.

Consider the national interest, How the hell is having a multi-national industry led by autocratic regime that controls a cartel that sets the price of a commodity that is used to literally move society. That seems to be one of the paths being presented.

That said, every percent gain by EVs in the overall car market, up to and over 50 percent by 2030, is a win for the home team.

@Dan Roberts If we had adhered Laissez-faire economics, coca-cola would have added opiates to the cocaine they used to have in their formula because it would be more addictive and therefore profitable. And it is quite possible the monopolist John D. Rockefeller would have been king - who knows but without the trust busting there is a good chance he'd ended up owning everything.

The railroad trusts, literally would starve communities if that fit their agenda. Rockefeller himself was known for taking over markets by literally selling below market, buying the railroad contracts for transportation to keep competitors out and would do - hell - price fixing once they got a monopoly position in a particular market.

It got so bad, this hands-off policy regarding the economy and trusts, was rejected by that big-stick carrying Republican Roosevelt - Trust-busting Teddy.

America left behind what was called the Gilded Age shortly after the hangover from the Roaring 20s left a quarter of the people in debt, out of work and starving. It was still in the 50s and the understanding of how things had to change was bolstered by the defeat of the Axis powers by the so-called 'greatest generation.' They sought to pass the futility of wage labor they felt through songs by Woody Guthrie (This land is your land) and even reliving the ugly past through songs like Tennessee Ernie Ford's "16 Tons" which suggested the coal miner couldn't die because he "owed his soul to the company store."

For instance, in 1900 Laissez-faire America, young children - we're talking 4,5,6 years old with small hands were needed by those manufacturing textiles because they could make adjustments on fast-running mechanical looms that adults could and would not. That the children were more apt than adults to lose hands, fingers and lives in these circumstances was of no concern to the 'capitalists' because if something happened, they'd just hire another brat for the duty. Yes, laissez-faire capitalists fought every child labor law conceived by government because laissez-faire asserts there should be NO REGULATION or even INTERFERENCE by government.

So, if you think there SHOULD NOT be child labor laws or even workers compensation laws for those injured on the job, and certainly no other laws aimed at any public good, then you can call yourself a true believer in Laissez-faire's NO regulation because under Laissez-faire economics; it is just not the governments' business.

But Dan, a lot of people do disagree and can cite the preamble of the constitution. It says "We the People" are charged with creating a more perfect government. The way I read it, with its reference to the general welfare - it doesn't say a word about the establishment of capitalist society, much less the obviously flawed laissez-faire form.

Since you strike me as one of those freedom fries folks, you do know that laissez-faire is a French word.

PV Magazine (online) published the first in a series of articles identifying those in our society that are actively seeking to limit roof-top solar everywhere. Good article that brings in the so-called astro-turf consumer groups, ALEC which is a corporate bill mill, and other folks fighting use of solar except those instances where they can profit.

@neomaxcom No government is perfect. More harm through history has been done by government intervention than a so called hands off approach. Capitalism excesses are usually righted without government meddling. No one suggests that our nation would be better off without laws. You take your point to far. The government didn’t breakup Microsoft, or Kodak or Xerox. Technology, time and peoples choice is a much better mechanism to right the boat. It is a very rare case indeed that we need government to breakup a monopoly. If you involve government in EV development progress will be slowed. Big money will be spent in the most inefficient way. Companies like Aptera will die on the vine, You will have GM and Ford making a few EV’s until China comes with their new crop of EV’s. Your reference to child labor laws is ill placed. Child labor was prominent throughout that age no matter the government.

If I remember my history right it was government intervention that caused the Great Depression. What you call the hang over was caused by the federal reserve and government imposed tariffs.

I hold to my opinion, I think government subsidies for the EV industry is a bad idea.

@Dan Roberts I agree from an Aptera perspective - GM gets a tax rebate while Tesla and Aptera don't...

But the oil subsidies in the US bother me a lot more... And I think that delays EV usage more than anything... Cheap gas and a stubborn attitude - why should we change anyway? Seems like the rest of the world is 20-50% ahead of us on this. The higher the oil prices in "rich" countries, the faster they adopt EVs.

@Naimless 1 The state imposed road tax in Georgia I believe is around eight cents and is low in comparison to many states. I may have substituted the gas mileage of an ICE powered Spark which is somewhere around 35-40 mpg. I made the calculation over a year ago at a meeting called by the AJC that featured the state senator from my district whom I knew. I remembered the punchline but may have presented it as the same car, except gasoline powered, would have to be driven 85000 miles to pay the same state road tax as I did.

Oh, and if memory serves, the fee is arbitrary and is the same for all EVs and, being arbitrary, it changes at the whim of the General Assembly. This is the kind of policy making you get out of folks who think it is cool to roll coal.

In other words, "This registration tax on my car is over $250/year and is the equivalent of the TAX on my buying enough gas to power a 20 mpg car 85,000 miles." (or maybe really a 40mpg car).

California's EV registration tax is about the same as you'd pay for gas tax driving a reasonable amount of miles in a car with above-average mpg. That was based on a non-luxury EV. More expensive EVs pay more registration tax.

@kiteboarder Good for California but Georgia's scheme not only sucks but shows how the general assembly is impacted by interests in the fossil fuel industry. Of course they're partial toward the private utilities as well.

According to "Know You Know" on YT Big Oil got $1.3 TRILLION$ in subsidies from 2015-2020. Lobbying (legal bribes) works! Still think you're "served"?

No one has to sabotage public financing of goods/services. Spending unlimited stolen money means no profits are necessary, no customer satisfaction either, just bureaucrats and fat cat politicians whose reply to every complaint is "We need more power, more money." Failure proves it, correct? Then success would mean a cut in money/power is coming? Hell NO! It proves "We should get more power/money."

In the 1840's L. Spooner met the demand for better mail delivery with his American Mail. The US Mail was saved by passing a law forbidding competition, putting Spooner out of business, then his innovations were coopted by the US Mail.

Corruption in public projects is documented by Roman historians writing during the Roman Empire. It's common in all coercive (tax & regulate) governments. And the Democratic Socialist Republics, e.g., USSR, CCP, Nazi Germany turn on their own and kill millions "for the collective", "the common good". Technology be taxed to death when it provides wealth, higher living standard, faster than the govt. can limit (regulate) it.

Dems (progressives) blame the Rs (conservatives) and vice versa but they both play the public for suckers. We have one party, the parasites who pretend to be our saviors if we just sell our souls to them.

@don If it was up to the oil cartel, they'd have the biggest army. I perceive the 'danger to government' comes less from the people and more from the multinational special interests whose 'more for me' at any cost attitude, resents not only the desire to regulate for public purpose, but resents that government possesses the only possible counter-veiling power. Further, I believe they are arrogant enough to try to neutralize the threat of government to coerce any change on their part (including removal of their 'bought and paid for' tax advantages.

We can see that by looking at the composition of the Oil cartel. The favored form of government, based on oil reserves, is inherited kingship followed by dictatorial powers.

Plan A for these folks is to first, be the government like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, Venezuela and Russia. If they can't be the government, plan B calls for co-opting it. Plan C comes about when it gets too expensive and problematic to continue down plan B. The third alternative is to instigate a coup, which comes from undermining democratic governments and corrupting and rigging public decision-making to meet the demands of private profit.

On one level, I think if tracked the influence spending of the fossil fuel industry in US elections over the past 50 years, you would see a big move to one party over another. The likely reason is the members of one party were always asking for more but also demanding more, in terms of the environment. Those politicians weren't staying bought and the record will show their disloyalty to this industry has left them increasingly out of the fundraising and lobbying in this industry.

But this obvious murky-ness in the midst of the climate crisis is contrasted with the purpose of this forum, which is understand and popularize what promises to be the epitome of personal transportation - The Aptera.

Before Harry Carey was the sportscaster for the White Sox, he was calling innings for the St. Louis Cardinal's during some of their greatest seasons (Remember folks like Bob White, Curt Flood and Stan Musial?). One of his colorful quotes was, "Move over boys, the cream will rise to the top."

It is that clear with the Aptera we're headed for a pennant. It is the beacon of good sense in a murky world. And that clarity is what is so attractive. It transcends and, if Aptera is as successful as I think it might be, it will be a revolutionary experience.

@neomaxcom Democracies are unstable if the will of the majority is forced on the minority, which has always been the means. Initiation of force, threats, is the opposite of respect for rights. It destabilizes society, regardless of the form of govt. in which it manifests. Tunisia's democracy of the last 10 years just collapsed and the people say it doesn't matter because it was no better. Why? Rights were as respected as they are in all countries, sacrificed at every turn, because coercion by an elite was tolerated. If the masses don't respect rights first/foremost, it's dog eat dog and everybody loses.

Tech won't change that. Only a moral enlightenment in politics by the public will.

@don That compares with societies which are even more highly unstable when they are arbitrarily ruled by autocrats, thugs and criminals. Ask Louis XVI about the origins of that colloquialism "Heads are going to roll" for an early example.

@Riley You are not going to see a sub-40K Cybertruck for a long time, if ever. Don't count on any rebate, even for the Cybertruck.

@#20116 I can substitute cybertruck for model 3 and still keep my point valid.

@chinkypoo1 Yes, EV incentives are for the year you spend the money on what the incentive is for. Currently no federal incentives exist for any 3 wheeled vehicles. That's what we are trying to change. An instant rebate like they have in several states including NJ & CA would be better than a tax credit, which only works for high income, top 10% people. NJ also lets you buy an EV sales tax free. But you need to go through a dealer, which Aptera doesn't have.

@Harry Parker I recall reading that the minimum income that generates a tax liability of $7500 (the current maximum EV Federal tax credit) is $54,000. The average US income is $31,133...

@OceanDragon Tax incentives are a large part of what built the Tesla charging network, as well as the current CCS / Chademo chargers. More tax incentives are already in the bi-partisan bill so that is likely to happen. This is why Tesla is opening their charging network. Apparently, beyond Europe requiring it for on-going tax incentives for chargers, the US is also going to require it to get tax incentives, at least if you believe some of the rumors. If tax payer dollars (or borrowed dollars) are going to pay for the chargers, that is probably good that any EV can use them.