Only if the vehicle is built in a union shop, which the leading EV manufacturer is not. The credit is significantly reduced otherwise.

Also, gas burning PHEVs (Prius) count as EVs which is such a limp handout to legacy auto and does little to push R&D forward.

Honestly, I'll never understand American politics. Linking a EV tax credit to unionisation just boggles my mind.

It's basically a bribe -- there was pretty well-sourced reporting that UAW was going to lobby against the electric vehicle package because electric require less manufacturing labor than ICE cars do (ugh), so this was the way to buy them off. It's sort of annoying, but probably tactically the right move given how much power labor has in Democratic politics.

Doctors in the UK were effectively bribed to allow the National Health Service to be created. "I stuffed their mouths with gold" is the quote. Organised, doctors could have simply refused to take any part in this endeavour and killed it, but with some having sound ethical reason to agree with the plan and others having financial reasons that was enough to ensure that resistance was piecemeal and today even those who most want to destroy the NHS are obliged to couch this as "reform".

This is the first time I have seen the word labor used in the context of US politics.

Really? The unions hold a lot of power, even today. That’s why the federal and California vaccine mandates have huge carve outs for the unions. The Democrats know who butters their bread and they’re willing to give them a pass knowing they’ll retain their votes next election.

Really. Unions, of course. But labor? No.

So you’re saying unions don’t represent labor?

No I said :

> This is the first time I have seen the word labor used in the context of US politics.

It's a fairly common term. Ie Labor day, AFL union. But it doesn't have as common of a linguistic relationship it did in prior decades. I bet it's one of those things you'll start seeing everywhere.

Right, you’re saying unions don’t represent labor because if they did, the constant talk about unions who the equivalent of taking about labor.

It falls under the "just transition" stuff.

It's not the autoworker or coalminer's fault and they and their communities should be considered in the solution, not just trampled over, for both political reasons and for basic justice.

Tesla's mission statement is “To accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.”. Even if this bill gives advantages to its competitors, Tesla wins, as electric cars get adopted faster. Also it's a huge global company at this point with lots of ammo to start lobbying, so I'm not worried about it at all.

> Where’s the inconvenience?

I don't want to buy a new electric car. I have a perfectly working petrol car. Why should I subsidize some rich guy's fancy new electric toy?

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...

I don't live in the US, but I will still be subsidizing it. I work for an American corp. If the customers and owners of the company are paying more tax to Uncle Sam, they're gonna be paying less salary to me.