[smegma2]

It looks like the OBBB ended the CAFE standards which have been blamed for the increase in car sizes over time (e.g. https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-cars-are-getting-huge-ar...). Also personally although I would prefer that people purchase EVs rather than ICE cars, I think it’s best not to subsidize cars at all, since it only benefits those who can afford cars, and it’s better to encourage other forms of transit.

[cyanydeez]

Small footprint EV should still be subsidized. You have 30 years of polluters, especially egregious. SUVs in the used market. The goal of subsidies is to shape long term outcomes where individuals must react to short term.

[bigbadfeline]

Subsidies are pure corruption, there is no argument in favor of corruption. Buy a stake in the manufacturer, control their prices, same as some utilities companies, if the taxpayers pay, they should get their stake's worth as a group.

[parineum]

> since it only benefits those who can afford cars

Ostensibly, it would benefit everyone by helping to address climate change.

[adrianN]

Subsidizing other forms of transport probably helps climate change more per dollar.

[smegma2]

True, I would be interested to hear to what extent EV subsidies sway people who are already planning to buy a car vs people who would otherwise not buy a car. The former category is almost definitely larger but to what extent?

[RainyDayTmrw]

Public transit is ideal, but electrification of private cars is still significant harm reduction.

[Larrikin]

If there isn't a subsidy that makes building subways cheap it doesn't help anyone.

[bigbadfeline]

Whatever it is, subsidies are a corrupt way of financing manufacturers, the money goes to them and a few car buyers. If you want to help an EV manufacturer, buy a stake in it, so the general public gets something in return for their investment.