Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

If you like having your blood pressure raised...

Vostok

Active Member
Jul 1, 2017
1,395
1,492
Sydney
Then read this article in the SMH (Drive), following up on the story on the “surge” in electric and plug-in vehicle sales on Thursday:

https://www.drive.com.au/news/why-electric-cars-should-not-get-taxpayer-dollars-123213.html

The journalist, Joshua Dowling (formerly with News Ltd) added an editorial at the end of the online story that did not appear in the print edition. I have a long rebuttal below, but it made me feel better :confused:

“The Federal Government probably thinks a grand announcement about electric cars might win favour among those in the electorate frustrated by climate policy in the wake of the recent bushfires and, now, floods.”

Well, maybe the Government has realised that a “grand” announcement about electric cars is actually what they are paid to do - plan for and deal with a transition that is coming, whether Mr. Dowling likes it or not. Sticking fingers in ears, pretending it’s not happening, and doing nothing to prepare for it is the definition of irresponsibility.

“However, Canberra should remember how much backlash there was to the opposition’s plan in the lead up to the last federal election to push half of Australia’s car fleet to electric power.”

The backlash was confected by News Ltd media outlets and all the usual right-wing nutjobs, it’s not clear at all there was much backlash if any from “quiet Australians”. And the plan was for up to 50% of new sales to be electric, not 50% of the entire “fleet” to be electric which will clearly take much longer. But that is typical of the misrepresentation peddled by the usual suspects.

“Electric car advocates point to the popularity of the technology overseas, however that has been driven by strict emissions policies and generous tax incentives or rebates for buyers.”

Does Mr. Dowling think Australia should have stricter emissions policies and less pollution, or lax emissions policies and more pollution? We’d like to know.

“The Electric Vehicle Council of Australia – whose members include energy and infrastructure companies with a vested interest – want government money to help build their recharging networks and boost their bottom line.”

And of course the fossil fuel industry has no vested interests in this debate. None whatsoever, they just want what’s best for communities. /s.

“The car industry lobby group is divided: some car brands also want the government to help foot the bill (by offering tax incentives to buyers) while others say there should be no public money spent and electric cars should survive on their own merit, based on natural consumer demand.”

And what if consumer demand is there, but there are policy barriers to customers exercising their free choice? Barriers that the government can remove, such as developing a policy for on-street AC chargers for people who would like an EV but don’t have off street parking for overnight charging?

“To put the current arguments from both sides into context, a hundred years ago governments didn’t offer tax incentives to petrol companies and car makers to get their businesses – and the internal combustion engine – up and running.”

For a start, I’m not even sure that’s true. Mr. Dowling has put that assertion forward, it is his responsibility to justify it with evidence.

But even if it is true, it’s irrelevant. There’s an imperative here that is not about whether Technology A or Technology B should receive some form of government policy or financial support. We know that vehicle emissions are a serious threat to public health and a major contributor to rising CO2 levels and global warming. That means something should be done about it at a government policy level, and not just leave it to the market, which repeatedly shows it is very poor at solving shared problems with long gestation and resolution timeframes.

“Further, should taxpayers be footing the bill for a vehicle technology that only suits a small percentage of the population?”

Really? What evidence does Mr. Dowling have that supports the contention that EVs “only suits a small percentage of the population?”. In 2018, the average vehicle in Australia travelled 13,400 km per year, or about 37 km per day. Sounds like an EV would suit that just fine.

9208.0 - Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, Australia, 12 months ended 30 June 2018

Despite people regularly bringing up the edge cases of driving Sydney-Perth or whatever, it seems we still cling to the myth that we are a nation of people that regularly drive huge distances. Most of us don’t (we fly instead), or if we do, it is infrequent and we could rent a car for the 1 or 2 times per year when an EV today might not be practical.

For the edge cases which aren’t suitable for an EV today, by all means hang on to your ICE until an EV comes along that works for you. But that doesn’t change the fact that EV technology today would work for far more people than Mr. Dowling thinks. Even a one-EV one-ICE model in a 2-car household would knock a huge part of the bell curve out.

And Mr. Dowling ignores the costs that ICE drivers impose on the rest of society that they do not directly pay for - the health costs to society of the pollution, noxious gases and particular matter they spew out every day. According to a recent study, air pollution in Australia contributes to an estimated 4880 premature deaths annually - triple the road toll. Vehicle emissions are a significant contributor to this.

The public health impacts of air pollution in Australia: Research, policy and planning disconnects | Climate and Energy College
Air pollution linked to risk of premature death

That is a taxpayer subsidy for fossil fuel consumers that is always conveniently ignored, as well as a dreadful social cost to those affected that, frankly, should be front page news and a daily blowtorch to the belly of the government.

4 deaths from a Pink Batts programme and there’s a Royal Commission. 4880 premature deaths annually due to air pollution and there’s silence. Draw your own conclusion.

“Here’s hoping policymakers can find the balance between the hype being pushed from both sides of this debate, and come up with a meaningful package that won’t cost the earth.”

Internal Combustion Engines are already costing us the earth, Mr. Dowling.
 

ICUDoc

Active Member
May 19, 2015
1,656
1,023
Sydney NSW
Internal Combustion Engines are already costing us the earth, Mr. Dowling.
Nicely said.
As for the rest of the article, Vostok, remember that people are flapped. They will always disappoint you in the end; they are short-sighted, self-centred and, ultimately, self-destructive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vostok

Kenz

Member
Oct 10, 2017
326
255
Hebron, Indiana
Murdochs news media empire has done much damage to people, animals and the planet.
Their support for Climate deniers and fossil fuels just shows greed and selfishness.
Media Con men and fossil fuels puppets are hurting people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vostok

Petros

Member
Jun 7, 2019
159
78
Sydney
Wow, Vostok, so well said. It’s great to see so many like you ignoring our PM’s implied injunction that we should be “quiet Australians”.
I have been a long time reader of the Drive supplement in the SMH and noted for years that they have tried to ignore BEV vehicles. I’ve written to them about that in the past. They even fail to compare BEV against similar priced ICE vehicles as if BEV have a totally different purpose.

The more often Murdoch’s minions and others are called out, the more likely the disengaged voters will notice.
 

paulp

Active Member
Jul 23, 2015
2,680
1,221
Adelaide, Australia
As has been the case since tesla (and electric vehicles) were identified as likeable and viable, there will be continued and ongoing attempts by vested interests, specifically big oil and the petrol retailers, to convince the public not to buy. This is most effective through the media, who they place a lot of finance (adverts) with. They bolster it politically via donations. They work on the theory that populations of people in Australia and indeed many countries dont like change.
It’s just another typical anti tesla article.
 

Vostok

Active Member
Jul 1, 2017
1,395
1,492
Sydney
If I remember correctly on December 9th 2014 Joshua Dowling opined that Tesla owners would each have to spend approximately $10,000 making their homes electrical system suitable for charging a model S.

Sorry, poor memory, it was December 10th 2014-
Electric car’s plug pulled in Australia
There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

I spent $540 making my home suitable to charge a Model 3. And even that was optional, really. Unless you do lots of driving charging off a 10A socket is not impossible for daily top-ups.

The spurious arguments raised are often beyond ridiculous.
 

meloccom

Moderator Aus/NZ
Feb 11, 2008
2,331
1,224
Sydney Australia
I was a worst case scenario. I park my car in a building where I own an investment apartment. I had to install a metre and run wiring to my parking space. It cost me circa $3,500.
 

EcoCloudIT

Active Member
Aug 24, 2015
1,151
412
Melbourne, VIC
Then read this article in the SMH (Drive), following up on the story on the “surge” in electric and plug-in vehicle sales on Thursday:

https://www.drive.com.au/news/why-electric-cars-should-not-get-taxpayer-dollars-123213.html

The journalist, Joshua Dowling (formerly with News Ltd) added an editorial at the end of the online story that did not appear in the print edition. I have a long rebuttal below, but it made me feel better :confused:

“The Federal Government probably thinks a grand announcement about electric cars might win favour among those in the electorate frustrated by climate policy in the wake of the recent bushfires and, now, floods.”

Well, maybe the Government has realised that a “grand” announcement about electric cars is actually what they are paid to do - plan for and deal with a transition that is coming, whether Mr. Dowling likes it or not. Sticking fingers in ears, pretending it’s not happening, and doing nothing to prepare for it is the definition of irresponsibility.

“However, Canberra should remember how much backlash there was to the opposition’s plan in the lead up to the last federal election to push half of Australia’s car fleet to electric power.”

The backlash was confected by News Ltd media outlets and all the usual right-wing nutjobs, it’s not clear at all there was much backlash if any from “quiet Australians”. And the plan was for up to 50% of new sales to be electric, not 50% of the entire “fleet” to be electric which will clearly take much longer. But that is typical of the misrepresentation peddled by the usual suspects.

“Electric car advocates point to the popularity of the technology overseas, however that has been driven by strict emissions policies and generous tax incentives or rebates for buyers.”

Does Mr. Dowling think Australia should have stricter emissions policies and less pollution, or lax emissions policies and more pollution? We’d like to know.

“The Electric Vehicle Council of Australia – whose members include energy and infrastructure companies with a vested interest – want government money to help build their recharging networks and boost their bottom line.”

And of course the fossil fuel industry has no vested interests in this debate. None whatsoever, they just want what’s best for communities. /s.

“The car industry lobby group is divided: some car brands also want the government to help foot the bill (by offering tax incentives to buyers) while others say there should be no public money spent and electric cars should survive on their own merit, based on natural consumer demand.”

And what if consumer demand is there, but there are policy barriers to customers exercising their free choice? Barriers that the government can remove, such as developing a policy for on-street AC chargers for people who would like an EV but don’t have off street parking for overnight charging?

“To put the current arguments from both sides into context, a hundred years ago governments didn’t offer tax incentives to petrol companies and car makers to get their businesses – and the internal combustion engine – up and running.”

For a start, I’m not even sure that’s true. Mr. Dowling has put that assertion forward, it is his responsibility to justify it with evidence.

But even if it is true, it’s irrelevant. There’s an imperative here that is not about whether Technology A or Technology B should receive some form of government policy or financial support. We know that vehicle emissions are a serious threat to public health and a major contributor to rising CO2 levels and global warming. That means something should be done about it at a government policy level, and not just leave it to the market, which repeatedly shows it is very poor at solving shared problems with long gestation and resolution timeframes.

“Further, should taxpayers be footing the bill for a vehicle technology that only suits a small percentage of the population?”

Really? What evidence does Mr. Dowling have that supports the contention that EVs “only suits a small percentage of the population?”. In 2018, the average vehicle in Australia travelled 13,400 km per year, or about 37 km per day. Sounds like an EV would suit that just fine.

9208.0 - Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, Australia, 12 months ended 30 June 2018

Despite people regularly bringing up the edge cases of driving Sydney-Perth or whatever, it seems we still cling to the myth that we are a nation of people that regularly drive huge distances. Most of us don’t (we fly instead), or if we do, it is infrequent and we could rent a car for the 1 or 2 times per year when an EV today might not be practical.

For the edge cases which aren’t suitable for an EV today, by all means hang on to your ICE until an EV comes along that works for you. But that doesn’t change the fact that EV technology today would work for far more people than Mr. Dowling thinks. Even a one-EV one-ICE model in a 2-car household would knock a huge part of the bell curve out.

And Mr. Dowling ignores the costs that ICE drivers impose on the rest of society that they do not directly pay for - the health costs to society of the pollution, noxious gases and particular matter they spew out every day. According to a recent study, air pollution in Australia contributes to an estimated 4880 premature deaths annually - triple the road toll. Vehicle emissions are a significant contributor to this.

The public health impacts of air pollution in Australia: Research, policy and planning disconnects | Climate and Energy College
Air pollution linked to risk of premature death

That is a taxpayer subsidy for fossil fuel consumers that is always conveniently ignored, as well as a dreadful social cost to those affected that, frankly, should be front page news and a daily blowtorch to the belly of the government.

4 deaths from a Pink Batts programme and there’s a Royal Commission. 4880 premature deaths annually due to air pollution and there’s silence. Draw your own conclusion.

“Here’s hoping policymakers can find the balance between the hype being pushed from both sides of this debate, and come up with a meaningful package that won’t cost the earth.”

Internal Combustion Engines are already costing us the earth, Mr. Dowling.

So well written, researched....thank you....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vostok

ShockOnT

⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️
Jun 26, 2016
3,346
3,034
Sydney
Nicely said.
As for the rest of the article, Vostok, remember that people are flapped. They will always disappoint you in the end; they are short-sighted, self-centred and, ultimately, self-destructive.
That's why they need good government. Individuals will always look after themselves, it's the governments job to govern. I wish they would.
 

ShockOnT

⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️
Jun 26, 2016
3,346
3,034
Sydney
So the carmakers are saying they don't want free money from the government that would make their EVs more saleable?
Clear proof they don't want to sell EVs.
 

Dborn

Confirmed
Aug 26, 2011
2,715
357
Sydney, Australia
Lets throw some nails into the works. The climate is changing. However it has forever been changing. Antarctica was once tropical. The whole of North America was buried under an ice sheet. Sure maybe it has changed a bit faster in the last century, but even that “fact” is not settled. Maybe a 1-1.5 degree warming in a century? IF it is anthropogenic, then likely it is related to the over abundance of a single species which is multiplying at an ever increasing rate, especially during the same century in question, and the solution is to restrict that species or even cull. (Shock/horror). Matter can be neither created nor destroyed. A basic law of physics. What CO2 is around has always been around. So it needs to be locked up again. How? Plants, especially trees, and specifically long lived trees, not eucalypts and the like. The chief scientist has pointed out that there is no way on this earth that renewables can reliably power the grid. So, the options, unless one is happy to retreat back into the Stone Age, AND totally trash the economy, is nuclear coal and gas, with some renewable contribution. Some increased co2 helps plants to grow faster-fact. Co2+sunlight+water and trace nutrients = O2 and food (sugars of various types). Admittedly, too much CO2 will at some point become toxic to plants, but not for a long long time and very much higher levels. The climate is not going to be taxed into submission. The chief scientist also said that even if ALL Australia’s emissions were stopped today, the most the contribution would make would be about 1.3 - 1.5% reduction in global CO2 emissions. Was in Shanghai not too long ago. A city with the population of the WHOLE of Australia, 24 million. The amount of pollution there is astounding. Makes a total mockery of ANY attempt at emission reduction in Australia . Totally futile.
Now, cars. Love my TESLA, and I have panels (6kw) and a TESLA battery, but I don’t kid myself this makes a jot of difference to the planet. What it does is reduce local smog, reduce my electricity bill, and gives me the pure pleasure of instant torque. (Just rented an outlander for a week while on hols- whew, what lack of power - not fun to drive).
What government should be doing is taking the luxury car tax off EV’s, simply as a matter of equity. The high price is not due to luxury but rather the cost of the fuel tank, and the myriad of other taxes imposed by state and federal governments. I do agree that the future of transport is electric in one form or another be it hydrogen or fuel cell or battery electric. Fact is, petroleum is a finite resource. We are going to need base load power and lots of it and RELIABLE base load, to drive the electric future.
 

paulp

Active Member
Jul 23, 2015
2,680
1,221
Adelaide, Australia
You’re begging for rampant abuse with your opening paragraphs.....

To the car though, sure your panels and car are making a small difference, but if every car on the planet was electric and had panels the difference would be massive. Cities would no longer have so much pollution. Health costs would reduce, wars would decrease and trees could be absorbing other co2 instead. Hot exhausts wouldn’t be starting grass fires. Just so many advantages.

Beijing and Shanghai, the only cities I’ve been to where I felt better on the aircraft afterward with ‘fresh air’.
Shanghai is incredible though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Petros

meloccom

Moderator Aus/NZ
Feb 11, 2008
2,331
1,224
Sydney Australia
Congratulations David, by purchasing an EV, Solar and Home battery, you have done more than most individuals in battling Climate Change. You along with many others on this forum have invested in new technologies, allowing the increase of economies of scale, reducing their prices and making these technologies available to more people with fewer resources than yourself.
I know we are unlikely to convince you of the Anthropogenic causes of Climate Change, but that no longer matters as particularly in the energy sector renewable energy is now the lowest cost source and money will drive their revolution far more than any political opinions. However we got to this place by good policy such as the Renewable Energy Target and many other overseas policies. It’s just a pity the RET has come to an end and the current people in charge have, it seems to me, no plan at all.
On the EV front, the same policy vacuum exists here, despite significant policy support overseas. We are in danger of being unprepared for the change to EVs here when overseas manufacturers no longer produce the ICE vehicles that Joshua Dowling seems wedded to. In the meantime this same policy vacuum results in Australia becoming the dumping ground for cars and trucks that don’t comply with overseas emission requirements resulting in worse local pollution that you are rightly concerned about.
 

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top