If energy just cost what it actually cost (no fossil fuel subsidies) the rest would follow. The market distortion from gas subsidies has caused this mess, we didn't get to everyone driving a 5000 pound vehicle due to the free market. We got here because of backwards laws and automaker's exploitation of said laws.
Fuel or electricity should cost what it costs. Vehicles need to be taxed according to their externalities. Heavier vehicles have more externalities. Road maintenance, pollution, traffic injuries and fatalities to name a few. I think if we did these things we'd trend back towards reasonable vehicles over time, and that would be a big net win.
A good thing to campaign for is revision of the EPA rules that exempt light trucks from certain mileage rules, or the ones that increase the allowable fuel consumption based on the wheelbase of the vehicle. This is one of the major drivers increasing the size of vehicles in the US, as I understand it.
> U.S. fossil fuel subsidies stretch across the U.S. tax code, which makes detailing their costs complex. The IMF estimates they stood at $760 billion in 2022, a figure topped only by China.
I wouldn't consider the government not taking their money a subsidy. A subsidy would be the government giving them money. There are drilling specific tax breaks but it's similar to other industry specific R&D tax breaks like agriculture and tech.
"It's like these other highly subsidized industries" doesn't make it not a subsidy. "We will tax you less than other people" is absolutely a form of subsidy.
I feel like we’re really stretching the term. People don’t normally say the government is subsidizing their income because the standard deduction exists.
Phrasing it this way also just begets that tax deductions are subsidies: “It's like these other highly subsidized industries.” Its rephrasing your conclusion rather than making some new point.
For 20k, you can deliver a certain level of EV. Features, size, performance, looks.
If there was a big enough market for that EV at 20k to make production practical, car companies would make them in an effort to maximize profit.
But Americans have a lot of money and a lot of space and want big vehicles; EVs are more expensive to produce, so it’s the rich people that want EVs. And those people aren’t going to buy a little toy box.
>car companies would make them in an effort to maximize profit
That might make sense if the only two options were "make nothing" and "make EVs to sell for 20k". In the presence of other options, however, the manufacturer might decide that that's not the optimal strategy. Or existing regulations, tariffs, or subsidies might be distorting the market. Automobiles are probably one of the least-free markets this side of pacemakers.
How can something as dead simple as a market not work? Things are offered for sale, and then people buy the things. As long as there are transactions, it’s working.
Now, is the market efficient / globally optimal? No. Welcome to complex reality.
Fuel or electricity should cost what it costs. Vehicles need to be taxed according to their externalities. Heavier vehicles have more externalities. Road maintenance, pollution, traffic injuries and fatalities to name a few. I think if we did these things we'd trend back towards reasonable vehicles over time, and that would be a big net win.