←back to thread

65 points doener | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
anovikov ◴[] No.45345257[source]
Too little and too late. Draconian measures are necessary to push automakers into compliance and to push consumers to buy. It's expensive unless we want to sell out to China completely, but necessary and in the end, affordable.
replies(8): >>45345279 #>>45345423 #>>45345594 #>>45345617 #>>45345664 #>>45345827 #>>45346002 #>>45346289 #
pjc50 ◴[] No.45345617[source]
The carrot will be much more well received than the stick. Price cap chargers and make sure they're everywhere, including kerbside.

Convert public fleets. It's much more reasonable to mandate that local councils and public servant staff cars should be EV-only first; these tend to have short turnover periods of three to five years anyway. That forces the public bodies to actually address the details of adoption.

Not to mention buses and public works vehicles like refuse lorries. Expensive, but if the transition has to happen it has to happen.

But I think the momentum is there on its own:

> In August alone, 154,582 EVs were snapped up, accounting for 20% of all new car sales. Analysts note that a 20–25% share is enough to meet the EU’s emissions targets for 2025–2027 and Europe has just reached that milestone.

There's a self-reinforcing circle that as more people have EVs, they become more "normal", and the more car-centric policy caters to their needs. People who are irrationally scared speak to friends who own one or ride in EV taxis (actually, taxis are nearly always hybrids at the moment?)

replies(1): >>45345722 #
ioteg ◴[] No.45345722[source]
Nobody is "irrationally scared" of EVs. We are rationally scared that, once enough well-off people have switched to EVs, this market share will be used as an excuse to stop poor people from driving their petrol or diesel cars. ("Rationally" because this is already happening.)
replies(3): >>45345739 #>>45345877 #>>45345939 #
1. myrmidon ◴[] No.45345877[source]
> We are rationally scared that, once enough well-off people have switched to EVs, this market share will be used as an excuse to stop poor people from driving their petrol or diesel cars.

I don't think that is rational at all. Have you ever looked at vintage car regulations in Europe? There are none, basically-- if your car is old enough, neither accident nor emission mitigation/prevention are required at all.

Why would you expect that this is going to change?

replies(2): >>45346370 #>>45346385 #
2. ioteg ◴[] No.45346370[source]
This is not true. ULEZ already exist and are mandatory from the EU in several cities of my country. (If your city has a population of more than X, you must implement a ULEZ.) People with 15 year old diesel cars can no longer drive in those cities. Exactly the same people who can't afford to change their cars. We are not talking “vintage” cars. We are talking poor people cars.
3. cdfsdsadsa ◴[] No.45346385[source]
Why would you expect things to stop changing?

For one, cars old enough to be without emissions or safety equipment are becoming more rare, to the point that they are now worth a significant amount of money. Anything that is currently in that grey, "pre-classic" area is already a very complicated machine that is very hard to maintain without OEM spares and support. Anything newer is designed from the ground up to hit a specified lifetime then get ground up into flakes for recycling. Opinions vary on the positive outcomes of this.

For two - regulations are constantly changing. Many cities have low-emissions zones. The EU is making significant changes to their vehicle end-of-life laws.

"Poor people" are not going to be maintaing classic old cars as a cheap form of transport, like some rose-tinted view of Cuba. They already lease brand-new cars.