Zum Inhalt der Seite gehen

indeed, this is the sector that is being hauled through the courts for screwing drivers who used their overpriced loan products.
What proportion of the subsidy would actually get though to the loan recipients?

If you want to subsidise electric vehicles why not do so directly, and only on smaller, less environmentally destrictive electric vehicles.
Yes - for eg. But why not just take the cash and invest in green public transport? As has been pointed out so many times:

1. EVs are still deeply polluting; and
2. EVs won't save the planet. They will save the car industry tho.

EV cars perpetuate the individualism which is killing us...
not disagreeing at all. Let them make EV busses!
Dieser Beitrag wurde bearbeitet. (2 Monate her)

JimmyB (he/him) hat dies geteilt

Went to an excellent talk last year (Politics and Pints) where a fella set out how and why we should stop subsidising EV cars locally, start subsidising EV bikes, scooters, buses, change the roads to prioritise such, and to make owning a car both painful and unnecessary.

Thought it was excellent. And I own a car and a motorbike 😀

It's a project that in #Jersey we really could actually do. But won't. Because individualism trumps all.
we had a scheme to provide subsidies for EV cars that - get this - got bigger as the cars got more expensive.

The scheme to subsidise e-bikes was massively under funded and over subscribed. And then scrapped.

Shit politicians: how lovely they are 😀
I’m sitting on a tram in #Zurich right now having popped across town at lunch time to get something. The app on my phone has a slider to turn travel on and off - and will calc the cheapest fare end of day - shows me all the connections possible to get to where I want to go.

Making it absolutely simple and obvious to go by public transport. As it should be!
What gets me is this constant growth fetish.
We can only make improvements if we change the way in which we consume and how we conduct our lives.
I agree. We need to learn - I'm trying - to live with less, to consume less. The reality is: income is directly correlated with carbon footprint. Once we understand that the solutions look simple in theory, impossible in practice.
I think we understand it and it is well known. We just choose to put personal, short-term monetary gains before looking after our home, a.k.a. planet earth.
It seems to me that everybody is saying it's okay to destroy everything and die in the process as long as we die rich.

JimmyB (he/him) hat dies geteilt

Yes - something like that. And attempting to fix it - in any small way - gets some serious heat.

And obviously our bought politicians are not going to do anything about it.

It's galling.