MemberSeptember 19, 2021 at 9:17 pm
I wish you’d be a little less rigid in your definition of politics. Having played in that a bit, there is a difference between politics and policy. That we, as a society, have oddly jumped the shark to make these two terms synonymous when they should be much more distinct.
For instance, my opinion is the way we’ve framed this issue, which dates to a decade ago, that the public provides subsidies for EVs, is simply the wrong frame.
What would probably be a better frame for encouraging adoption of approaches to a low-carbon future would be advanced by an approach that subsidizes, by whatever means, high-efficiency, sustainable transportation.
The best idea – i.e. first principle for government subsidies is to put the incentive in the right place for the goal you seek to accomplish.
I actually think it a bit limited to suggest the scheme conjured in the current bill – an obvious expansion of the original EV tax credit – is particularly problematic in terms of accomplishing the stated goals.
Aptera is based on first principles and the key principle that inspired the Aptera is adherence to hyper-efficiency in transportation. Given policy is one avenue for gaining broad acceptance, it is counter-productive to avoid talking about policy.
Given the challenges posed by climate change and the communication burdens necessary to counter gross efforts to misinform, it seems to me it would be impossible to get there if speaking about plans, programs and policies is prohibited.