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
“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.
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
“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.
