this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
194 points (98.5% liked)
Climate
8611 readers
164 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
subisdizing fossil fuels during shortage is opposite of reasonable policy. While only path to prevent global warming is carbon tax and dividend, giving people more money during shortages is better policy than subsidies. If it is calculated that average person will face $100 in extra costs due to fuel prices, giving $50 in payroll tax cuts, and $50 cash to everyone is path to compensating both employees forced to get to work, and all people. Whether EVs or bicycles or transit or just paying more for gas for their cars, people are empowered towards solutions that maximize their welfare.
For Germany to triple down on geopolitical extortion energy is a special kind of stupid.
Especially because the tax cuts will be pocketed by petrol corporations at least in part instead of making gas guzzling cheaper. Who doesn't want to increase big petrol profits at the expense of the community (because eventually the people need to pay for the tax cuts one way or another...).
Short-term your proposal makes sense - and a lot more than what seems to be done in Germany.
Long-term the only available and viable solution is making electric vehicles more attractive (by subsidizing them, the electricity to operate them and/or punishing the purchase of ICE cars).
When looking at new cars it's easy to make a case for EV.
When buying used it's a different thing, especially if the car is more than a few years old.
A few year old combustion engine cars are lot cheaper than comparable electric ones.
And a lot of years old EVs often have batteries with serious degradation, because battery (thermal) management was way less advanced when they were produced.
We are in trying times, but the prospect is getting better and better for EVs.
Carbon tax and dividend is best/only policy not subject to political BS. $300/ton is right tax level (75c/liter gasoline). In US, that would be enough to pay each citizen/resident $4000/year with unchanged behaviour. EVs are better TCO even at $1/liter gasoline. Government/polticians doesn't need to be involved in marketing "science benefits", and carbon tax and dividend costs 0. Let private sector convince people how to save money with a better type of car, or let people use transit/cycling or live closer to where they need to go to. You effectively do punish behaviour that needlessly wastes fuel.
EV subsidies incentivizes car purchases not car use. If a used gas guzzler is cheap because it is uneconomical for most people, someone who needs it for 10 miles/week of school drop off and groceries gets a cheap car that pays for minimal climate destruction it contributes to. West has tried EV incentives before. Political BS of giving incumbents $$$Bs, while establishment funds disinformation to protest against the subsidies and disruption of establishment. Human sustainability gets massive disinformation budget to condemn it.