Because the rest of us are subsidizing the externality of the destruction your petrol car is wreaking on the environment.

...also, given that you're calling it a "petrol" car - a Briticism - do you even live in the US? If not, you won't be the one subsidizing it in case this bill comes to pass anyway.

Taxing carbon has justification. Subsidizing EVs does not. If I walk and bike everywhere, I shouldn't be funding someone's EV, which has its own externalities above and beyond my bike related to lithium mining and manufacturing and the grid not being fully renewable and taking up more space on public roads. They should be giving me money instead.

I agree with that in some respects, but to be consistent someone else can pick this up and use it as an excuse not to fund lots of other things too.

But also remember that your lifestyle is being subsidized by oil and gas as well. The food you eat, the bike parts for your bike, the road you ride on, all of that is built using oil. So you’re not absolved of oil sin here.

With that being said, EVs are just a bandaid on what is already the wrong solution. The problem is driving at all, not driving gasoline or electric cars. We should be walking and biking and designing cities and towns around that as the primary mode of transportation, not the car. It’s insane that it is normalized in America that if you want something like a cup of coffee people will drive a 3,000lb vehicle half a mile to go get it. The energy expenditure for that is unbelievable. We live in a golden age of cheap energy.

Because we all, including you, still live on this planet. We need more people, lots more, to switch their purchase to electric vehicles. We all need this.

We need everyone to stop using ICE vehicles, which is distinct to needing everyone to switch to EVs. That distinction is the reason why EV subsidies are so much worse than a carbon or ICE tax. A subsidy leads to pathologies like bike owners giving money to EV owners when that arrow should be flipped. I don't need an EV (or any car), but now I'm artificially incentivized to get one and will actually increase pollution when I otherwise wouldn't have.

Thats fine though, you're an outlier (I am too). But general action on climate change is good for people who cycle and use public transport and want to live in livable cities, so its all good. No need to stress over a minor political compromise on the way there. Just enjoy the cleaner air the next time you are out cycling.

While bikes, walking, and public transportation are great in cities, for much of the United States those are not viable options.

Addressed by an ICE tax. The only argument I'm willing to buy is that EV subsidies is a political compromise made out of necessity, not that it's superior policy.

> also, given that you're calling it a "petrol" car - a Briticism

"Petrol" is the more common term. If anything, "gasoline" is an Americanism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Etymology

> In most Commonwealth countries, the product is called "petrol", rather than "gasoline"

> The use of the word gasoline instead of petrol is uncommon outside North America,

I don't even have a car, why should I subsizide someone elses? They should just not have a car, like me. If that doesn't work where they live, the move to somewhere where it works, and pay absurd rents, like I do.

I'm not strictly against the subsizidies, but they have sever social justice implications.

EV subsidies seem to be set at roughly the amount the country will save in various related costs, health from pollution, importing oil, carbon abatement, supporting green grids etc. I'm not sure if thats a coincidence or not, but either way it massively shifts the impact from being benefit to rich person in new EV car to poor person outside EV (or any) car.

I can't tell if this is a joke comment...