The politics of incentives

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Funkworks

Low Earth Orbit, obstructing Earth's view of Venus
Joined
Jul 28, 2018
Messages
5,379
Reaction score
6,052
Last edited:
If you read the articles carefully, you’ll see that the legislation isn’t a ban on ICE vehicles. It requires a plan to wean off of ICE vehicles. In theory, that plan could be a total ban on buying new or used ICEs, but there will need to be new legislation to actually implement the plan. That new legislation will almost certainly get sent to a referendum for a statewide vote.

TL;DR: this isn’t anywhere near the ban it’s hyped to be.
 
All virtue signaling. Market conditions will ultimately determine the feasibility of this initiative. If the EV market/tech/cost are economically feasible by 2030 then the law would not be needed. If the economically feasilibility causes hardship then politicians will change the law.
 
As long as there's not a ban, I don't see it being a big deal for most people. My cars will last the rest of my life; I sold my newest two, s 99 and a 97.
I have two 96's left, and one has a new engine in it, and I have an engine on the stand for the other one.
I don't live in the rust belt, so this won't affect me at all.
 
The great thing about the U.S. is that we have 50 states to choose from. Lots of people are moving out of California, and perhaps this will drive lots of people to move out of Washington. Or not.
 
All virtue signaling. Market conditions will ultimately determine the feasibility of this initiative. If the EV market/tech/cost are economically feasible by 2030 then the law would not be needed. If the economically feasilibility causes hardship then politicians will change the law.
Not always.

For example, look at light bulbs. If it was not for the government pushing us to more efficient bulbs, we would still be mostly using incandescent bulbs today. In fact, I was annoyed when new rules came out and thought the efficiency standards were a bit of government over-reach. Yes, saying this to my progressive friends pissed them off which was half of the fun of the whole thing. I'm all for reducing power usage but the idea of a $15 light bulb replacing a $0.50 light bulb stuck in my craw. But the government push was needed to get production up to a viable scale to make more efficient bulbs mainstream. Remember the earlier efficient bulbs kinda sucked, and were prone to infant mortality and so forth.

The expensive LED first bulbs I bought had little to do with saving energy. The incandescent bulbs burned out in my coach lamps outside, necessitating me getting on a ladder in a precarious way to change them, and due to moisture getting in and shattering the glass, I was replacing probably 5-10 per year. Didn't care about the cost, was more concerned about effort/risk. I replaced them with LEDs starting in I think 2013 (there's a thread on this forum somewhere about it!). Of the five exterior bulbs I put in, I think 3 of them are still in service. After I warmed up to the ones outside, I started replacing the ones inside (I did the math about energy savings). I kept receipts for all the $15 bulbs I bought, and got free replacements for the ones that died early, and pretty soon as government pressure pushed old incandescent bulbs off the shelves, the $15 bulb became a $8 bulb and now they are probably $2. They last longer than ever and each generation is more efficient than the last while putting out better light.

By about 2016 the only incandescent bulbs in my house were the special purpose utility bulbs in appliances (and even those now have more efficient alternatives).

Today for general lighting it would never occur to me to use an incandescent bulb. And the only reason LED bulbs (and a few other technologies) are the mainstream choice is because our government pushed incandescent bulbs off the shelves. I didn't like it at the time, but I'm grateful in retrospect.

I think transition to widespread EVs will be much harder and take a lot longer, but government pressure (incentives preferably as opposed to bans) will be needed to make it economically viable for scale up, just like light bulbs.
 
Not always.

For example, look at light bulbs. If it was not for the government pushing us to more efficient bulbs, we would still be mostly using incandescent bulbs today. In fact, I was annoyed when new rules came out and thought the efficiency standards were a bit of government over-reach. Yes, saying this to my progressive friends pissed them off which was half of the fun of the whole thing. I'm all for reducing power usage but the idea of a $15 light bulb replacing a $0.50 light bulb stuck in my craw. But the government push was needed to get production up to a viable scale to make more efficient bulbs mainstream. Remember the earlier efficient bulbs kinda sucked, and were prone to infant mortality and so forth.

The expensive LED first bulbs I bought had little to do with saving energy. The incandescent bulbs burned out in my coach lamps outside, necessitating me getting on a ladder in a precarious way to change them, and due to moisture getting in and shattering the glass, I was replacing probably 5-10 per year. Didn't care about the cost, was more concerned about effort/risk. I replaced them with LEDs starting in I think 2013 (there's a thread on this forum somewhere about it!). Of the five exterior bulbs I put in, I think 3 of them are still in service. After I warmed up to the ones outside, I started replacing the ones inside (I did the math about energy savings). I kept receipts for all the $15 bulbs I bought, and got free replacements for the ones that died early, and pretty soon as government pressure pushed old incandescent bulbs off the shelves, the $15 bulb became a $8 bulb and now they are probably $2. They last longer than ever and each generation is more efficient than the last while putting out better light.

By about 2016 the only incandescent bulbs in my house were the special purpose utility bulbs in appliances (and even those now have more efficient alternatives).

Today for general lighting it would never occur to me to use an incandescent bulb. And the only reason LED bulbs (and a few other technologies) are the mainstream choice is because our government pushed incandescent bulbs off the shelves. I didn't like it at the time, but I'm grateful in retrospect.

I think transition to widespread EVs will be much harder and take a lot longer, but government pressure (incentives preferably as opposed to bans) will be needed to make it economically viable for scale up, just like light bulbs.
Virtually the same story could have been told about phasing out leaded gas. That made a big difference in air and water quality within a few years.
 
The great thing about the U.S. is that we have 50 states to choose from. Lots of people are moving out of California, and perhaps this will drive lots of people to move out of Washington. Or not.
Yeah, the damn Californians are moving to WA after screwing up their own state since WA hasn't quite reached that level of decay....yet...
 
I was going to mention leaded gasoline.

we can also talk seat belts, and the alcohol limit of when too much is too much..

Also look at TVs, and other electronics.. remember then 'HD' tvs came out.. they were what.. In the kilo-dollar range..

as for 'conspiracy theories':
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/online-conspiracy-violent-extremism-1.6434854
but of course, that's a conspiracy..
 
The great thing about the U.S. is that we have 50 states to choose from. Lots of people are moving out of California, and perhaps this will drive lots of people to move out of Washington. Or not.
I know that Seattle isn't all of WA, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if we took a 10% haircut on house prices because a bunch of people left. And I say that as a homeowner. That said, there's been a longstanding trope of "Seattle is Dying" by one of the local TV stations. Somehow, all of the anecdotes of people leaving town haven't resulted in any significant population loss.
 
The great thing about the U.S. is that we have 50 states to choose from. Lots of people are moving out of California, and perhaps this will drive lots of people to move out of Washington. Or not.
The exodus from California is mostly due to developers refusing to build affordable housing and all scrambling to get contracts for upscale places. It represents an affordability problem brought on by greedy and unsustainable market economics, not a bunch of hillbillies getting fed up with big gubbermint and packing up. I’d love if it were the latter, but it’s not.
 
Not always.

For example, look at light bulbs. If it was not for the government pushing us to more efficient bulbs, we would still be mostly using incandescent bulbs today. In fact, I was annoyed when new rules came out and thought the efficiency standards were a bit of government over-reach. Yes, saying this to my progressive friends pissed them off which was half of the fun of the whole thing. I'm all for reducing power usage but the idea of a $15 light bulb replacing a $0.50 light bulb stuck in my craw. But the government push was needed to get production up to a viable scale to make more efficient bulbs mainstream. Remember the earlier efficient bulbs kinda sucked, and were prone to infant mortality and so forth.
That is true. But I am not getting nowhere near the promised life out of my LED bulbs. My bathroom 3 and 5 bulb fixtures cannot go a year without failing. But they are such a small distributed expense its not obvious that they are actually costing me more money that than the incandescent... The CFL's lasted much longer but didn't care for the light. I like the LED's though. But I think its costing me more money.

But I am all for the states being the laboratories of Democracy as opposed to those who want some type of homogeneous country, otherwise why have states at all?
 
Last edited:
I know you're joking, but what's the problem with people living with other people they agree with, and states conducting their economies according to what the populace wants?

There’s nothing wrong with people moving to other states and living among people they agree with or the laws and local culture are more to their liking. People have been doing that for a long time, and the trend is accelerating. The nation is sorting itself. It used to be a secondary consideration when relocating. The main reason people would move was usually to follow good jobs or other economic factors. But now you hear more people considering politics and culture.

I live in California and the main reason people moved here was for excellent career opportunities not found just anywhere. And the main reason people moved out was the high cost of living and especially expensive housing. A common thing was people retiring, cashing out their home equity, and moving to cheaper places. But now the states are moving in such different directions legislating cultural issues, I expect a lot of people may move here or other places to escape what they consider repressive laws regarding reproductive rights, sexual identity and orientation, the teaching of history, etc.
 
All we need is to organize 100,000 or so Californians to move to Wyoming, and we could completely take over that state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top