• gramathy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        52
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Most of that is because we truck everything and trains only get used for extreme bulk like coal

        • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          40
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          We can thank the US oil and auto industries (the same ones dictating these green energy tariffs to their political puppets), for that too.

        • Zahille7@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          Don’t forget overloading them with hazardous materials, only to eventually inevitably crash and cause another social, economic, and climate disaster!

      • TheWolfOfSouthEnd
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Interestingly, China and India, who were told are massive polluters, aren’t even on that list.

        • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          2 months ago

          Most east Asian countries are fairly low down on the list. They have excellent public transport, the world’s best high-speed rail networks, and a significant number of road vehicles are already electric.

        • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 months ago

          China is mostly building rail to solve its transportation issues, so this is completely unsurprising.

        • carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          Cope lol

          EVs are expected to reach 45% marketshare in 2024 in CN. Also I guess you haven’t seen their high speed rail network expand over the last decade (pressuring their car market in general). Then you have a lot of capita. So yes the numbers make sense.

    • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      2 months ago

      It does sadly. On the flip side, China seems to be trying to capture car manufacturing markets by subsidizing their producers. This would probably be a bad thing in the future if allowed. Hopefully the US government does more work on making it easier to purchase electric cars in the US(specifically the price) while also reducing the need for driving.

      • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        50
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        What exactly is wrong with a country subsidizing green energy products? Not only that, but making them available cheaply to other countries?

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          2 months ago

          The US Government doesn’t want US automakers to lose market share so that they have plenty of manufacturing capacity that could be retooled to make weapons in case of war.

        • nahuse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m not precisely sure where I stand on this, but I understand the primary policy arguments for this decision would be something like this:

          The problem comes later, when a specific actor has an outsized market share and then exploits their trade advantage for other concessions.

          It also prohibits domestic competition for those products, especially in countries with high standards of living and wages. This negates competition and innovation, since most corporations don’t have the ability to compete with an entity with the capacity to eat cost like the Chinese government.

          • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            The point of trade decisions, is to import products you don’t have enough domestic production to cover the demand for.

            We know that the US auto and oil industries have no sincere desire to build EVs anyway (or any green industry whatsoever), because they did their best to kill their domestic production of EVs in the 90s, and there’s no US industry for solar panels.

            This is all just part of the US’s trade war with China, that is prioritizing the profits of its auto and oil industries over the wellbeing of the environment, and the desires of its citizens for electric vehicles.

            • nahuse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I can’t say I disagree with anything you’ve said. It really is silly, given the US auto manufacturer industry’s continuous fuck ups, and pulling out of EVs. But hopefully this makes risk taking more likely in other countries’ car industries to move into the US market. Tesla seemed close to really catching on, but then again EVs have always been seen as “elite” here.

              But I suppose the question is whether there is that much demand for EVs? This could protect what demand there is, to at least make an even playing field for US or US ally made EVs.

              Speaking to your first point: users of Lemmy aside, I don’t think there’s that much demand for pure electric vehicle yet across the US. We so routinely travel such long distances here, and charging infrastructure just isn’t quite there outside of urban corridors to facilitate the easy usage of fully electric vehicles.

              So hopefully this can protect domestic or other countries’ industries until the idiots that comprise the US consumer market catch up to global realities.

              • o_d [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                But I suppose the question is whether there is that much demand for EVs?

                Remove the tariffs / open up the market and you’ll find out. I suspect that there wouldn’t be a need for these tariffs if the demand wasn’t there.

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          it undermines any less subsidized green energy industry which can lead to monopolies in the long run.

        • Ledivin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Also no US auto-manufacturer is going all in on EVs

          Tesla? Rivian? Lucid? Faraday? Fisker?

          To be clear, yes, of course I understand that those are all luxury brands, but that doesn’t make your statement any less false.

          No, the major auto manufacturers aren’t going all-in on EVs, but that are all getting deeper every year. There’s no reason to expect that progress to slow down, as they’re all quite entrenched in the technology at this point.