Sometimes I hate my google feed for feeding me articles like this. Awful piece in the Star from a Kenneth Green at the Fraser Institute. I will not link.
Below is what I wrote the author. Probably will on falls on deaf ears. TL;DR - your article was a hit piece.
Hi Mr Green,
Your article in The Toronto Star came up in my google feed.
As you might guess given that I am writing you, I found multiples issue with the content of the article. As the internet is a cesspool of people yelling at each other I think a better tact is to assume the best interpretation of what people are saying instead of the worse.
On that note I will provide some critiques where I thought you got things wrong.
You say that is only 'partially true' that electric vehicles run on electricity. There is no 'partial' about it. There is no other power source. If you were trying to make the point that sales run on subsidies well that is different but your wording is confusing to to say the least. Please tell me which part of a Tesla does not run on electricity? The Ford government was negligent at best to write the phase-out law as they did by singling out Tesla as they wasted taxpayers money paying Tesla's legal bills. You should have mentioned that, perhaps you did not know.
Tesla was specifically targeted in the legislation, I am not sure how you could argue otherwise. Everyone who had ordered a car from ANY manufacturer could complete the sale and get the rebate by September 10 EXCEPT those who has ordered a Tesla. Tesla sued, the courts agreed, the government did the absolute minimum and included Tesla in the Sept 10th deadline. The program is still cancelled. Why are you singling out Tesla?
The following paragraph is, well, almost completely wrong:
"But Ford should stick to his guns — electric cars have been an expensive boondoggle for decades, using taxpayer dollars to subsidize wealthy buyers so they can signal environmental virtue, while doing virtually nothing for the environment."
First Ford is sticking to his guns - the rebate has been ended. Not sure what you are referring to there. Electric cars have not been around for decades in ANY appreciable amount. About 8 years is when the first Teslas came out and there were so few then. "Expensive boondoggle" is a loaded phrase - I wonder if you knew that. I am not sure if you are an academic but this is no way to have intelligent public discourse. 'Boondoggle' is usually reserved for programs that did not work. This one worked really well and the cars are fantastic - highest ownership satisfaction. The whole 'wealthy buyers' is an easy throw away line but has been untrue for a while. With the Model 3 and Chevy Bolt for sale now these cars are in the price range of many buyers. Guess what are the top 5 cars Tesla Model 3 buyers are coming from? Here they are:
Next we get a paragraphs about the, I assume, EV1 program which is ancient history with completely different technology and even then they had to pry the keys from many of their customer's hands.
Next you take the MOST expensive Model S to claim affordability has not changed much. I hope that was an honest $76,000 mistake which is that much more than a base model S costs.
Then you forgot to mention that the rebates were paid for from Cap and Trade which was funded by pollution. Using the phrase "Ontario Taxpayers" is again a loaded phrase. If your sentence had read: "Meanwhile, Ontario polluters have been paying for rebates that help get clean electric cars on the road". Well that sounds not so nefarious doesn't it?
Your 'to be fair" sentence is complete unfair because BMW was INCLUDED in the wind-down period. Only Tesla was excluded. What could BMW possibly sue for?
Now we have the EVs are dirty (aka long tailpipe) argument. This has been studied to death and even EVs charged on coal are as clean as the cleanest cars. Now of course Ontario has some of the cleanest power on the continent and this article was about Ontario subsidies so I am surprised you did not mention that EVs in Ontario are in fact extremely clean. Oh, an guess which way coal is going as a percentage of the North American energy grid? Hint - way down.
I think that the you misunderstand the purpose of the rebate. It is not, as you seem to think, to directly reduce GHG emissions. That would indeed be a dumb idea. The purpose of the rebate is to seed a market, by helping early adopters, so that manufacturing volume is high enough to reduce cost. In that sense, in conjunction with rebates in other jurisdictions the program, has been very successful. I actually think the rebate was too high but the Ford government should have phased it out over a few years like many other jurisdictions. I am surprised you did not know all this.
Your final sentence is simply wrong. Again,Tesla sued to be included in the phase out period. They did not sue to preserve the program.
Oh and I will certainly bet anyone that the future of cars is electric, for two reasons China is absolutely 'all in' on electric as they again leapfrog us in technology while we go slow with legacy. Secondly, on current trends pack costs for batteries will be on par with gas by about 2020 - a phenomenal reduction from a few short years ago. If Tesla can make money on their USD$35,000 Model 3 - look out.
I certainly hope you wrote this article in the spirit furthering public knowledge and debate. Unfortunately I feel quite an number of important inaccuracies has only clouded the issue. Open, accurate debate is what we need.
If you read this far thanks.
Below is what I wrote the author. Probably will on falls on deaf ears. TL;DR - your article was a hit piece.
Hi Mr Green,
Your article in The Toronto Star came up in my google feed.
As you might guess given that I am writing you, I found multiples issue with the content of the article. As the internet is a cesspool of people yelling at each other I think a better tact is to assume the best interpretation of what people are saying instead of the worse.
On that note I will provide some critiques where I thought you got things wrong.
You say that is only 'partially true' that electric vehicles run on electricity. There is no 'partial' about it. There is no other power source. If you were trying to make the point that sales run on subsidies well that is different but your wording is confusing to to say the least. Please tell me which part of a Tesla does not run on electricity? The Ford government was negligent at best to write the phase-out law as they did by singling out Tesla as they wasted taxpayers money paying Tesla's legal bills. You should have mentioned that, perhaps you did not know.
Tesla was specifically targeted in the legislation, I am not sure how you could argue otherwise. Everyone who had ordered a car from ANY manufacturer could complete the sale and get the rebate by September 10 EXCEPT those who has ordered a Tesla. Tesla sued, the courts agreed, the government did the absolute minimum and included Tesla in the Sept 10th deadline. The program is still cancelled. Why are you singling out Tesla?
The following paragraph is, well, almost completely wrong:
"But Ford should stick to his guns — electric cars have been an expensive boondoggle for decades, using taxpayer dollars to subsidize wealthy buyers so they can signal environmental virtue, while doing virtually nothing for the environment."
First Ford is sticking to his guns - the rebate has been ended. Not sure what you are referring to there. Electric cars have not been around for decades in ANY appreciable amount. About 8 years is when the first Teslas came out and there were so few then. "Expensive boondoggle" is a loaded phrase - I wonder if you knew that. I am not sure if you are an academic but this is no way to have intelligent public discourse. 'Boondoggle' is usually reserved for programs that did not work. This one worked really well and the cars are fantastic - highest ownership satisfaction. The whole 'wealthy buyers' is an easy throw away line but has been untrue for a while. With the Model 3 and Chevy Bolt for sale now these cars are in the price range of many buyers. Guess what are the top 5 cars Tesla Model 3 buyers are coming from? Here they are:
- Toyota Prius
- BMW 3-Series
- Honda Accord
- Honda Civic
- Nissan Leaf
Next we get a paragraphs about the, I assume, EV1 program which is ancient history with completely different technology and even then they had to pry the keys from many of their customer's hands.
Next you take the MOST expensive Model S to claim affordability has not changed much. I hope that was an honest $76,000 mistake which is that much more than a base model S costs.
Then you forgot to mention that the rebates were paid for from Cap and Trade which was funded by pollution. Using the phrase "Ontario Taxpayers" is again a loaded phrase. If your sentence had read: "Meanwhile, Ontario polluters have been paying for rebates that help get clean electric cars on the road". Well that sounds not so nefarious doesn't it?
Your 'to be fair" sentence is complete unfair because BMW was INCLUDED in the wind-down period. Only Tesla was excluded. What could BMW possibly sue for?
Now we have the EVs are dirty (aka long tailpipe) argument. This has been studied to death and even EVs charged on coal are as clean as the cleanest cars. Now of course Ontario has some of the cleanest power on the continent and this article was about Ontario subsidies so I am surprised you did not mention that EVs in Ontario are in fact extremely clean. Oh, an guess which way coal is going as a percentage of the North American energy grid? Hint - way down.
I think that the you misunderstand the purpose of the rebate. It is not, as you seem to think, to directly reduce GHG emissions. That would indeed be a dumb idea. The purpose of the rebate is to seed a market, by helping early adopters, so that manufacturing volume is high enough to reduce cost. In that sense, in conjunction with rebates in other jurisdictions the program, has been very successful. I actually think the rebate was too high but the Ford government should have phased it out over a few years like many other jurisdictions. I am surprised you did not know all this.
Your final sentence is simply wrong. Again,Tesla sued to be included in the phase out period. They did not sue to preserve the program.
Oh and I will certainly bet anyone that the future of cars is electric, for two reasons China is absolutely 'all in' on electric as they again leapfrog us in technology while we go slow with legacy. Secondly, on current trends pack costs for batteries will be on par with gas by about 2020 - a phenomenal reduction from a few short years ago. If Tesla can make money on their USD$35,000 Model 3 - look out.
I certainly hope you wrote this article in the spirit furthering public knowledge and debate. Unfortunately I feel quite an number of important inaccuracies has only clouded the issue. Open, accurate debate is what we need.
If you read this far thanks.
