[afavour]

I get you're being sarcastic here but it's clear that the market hasn't been a total success with EVs. They require much more charging infrastructure before many will consider buying, but the EV infrastructure won't be built until there is demand for it. This is a classic example of where a government can step in to tip the scales and force a desirable outcome.

[throwaway0a5e]

So why ban instead of subsidize? (in the general case, we all know that states like NY love to ban things)

Rooftop solar got cheap enough to be not quite viable and then took off like a rocket with government subsidy. If people could install chargers at a negligible net cost to them you'd see them everywhere as landlords and house flippers jump to "check that box".

[OneEyedRobot]

While I think that EVs are cool, the subsidies not only distort things but are essentially tax breaks for the well-off.

It's funny to me how the whole ICE vs. EV argument just isn't that much of a slam-dunk. Looking at page 5 here:

https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life...

Completely altering the vehicle mix doesn't look like a game changer to me. I guess there's probably no low-hanging fruit.

In the future, no doubt not only will houses be unaffordable for the middle class and below, but also cars.

[afavour]

Because climate change is an emergency? Because it sends a stronger signal? Because it's what in line with countries across the world (and California) are already planning?

https://www.coltura.org/world-gasoline-phaseouts

New York isn't exactly some unique snowflake here.