Roper: ‘War’ on cars is a war on the poor

By Rob Roper

Anthony Roisman, chair of Vermont’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC), is making the media rounds pushing the idea that we need to move to “wartime footing” in an effort to reach the state’s goals for electric vehicles by 2025.

These goals are, of course, insanely absurd. They would require Vermont to have 50,000 to 60,000 electric vehicles on the road in less than six years. That’s means adding roughly 10,000 EVs a year. Now, keep in mind that cumulatively over all the years that EVs and hybrids have been a thing (the first Prius came out in 1997) Vermonters have registered less than 3000 EVs — total.

Rob Roper

Rob Roper is the president of the Ethan Allen Institute.

Why is this? Well, the short answer is Vermonters do not want these cars. At least not in the numbers our politicians would like us to want them.

A report to the legislature on “Promoting the Ownership and Use of Electric Vehicles in Vermont” cites the more detailed reasons, “The barriers identified include, but are not limited to, the price of new electric vehicles, the perceived limited distance that an EV can travel on a single charge, and the limited availability of public charging locations. Though not cited as often as these barriers, lack of vehicle choice….” In other words, they are too expensive, unreliable for long distances, inconvenient to operate, and functionally impractical. All good reasons not to waste your money on them.

Our politicians’ solution: force you to waste your money on them!

The recommendations in the report all come down to taxpayer funded subsidies of one kind or another – a $7500 federal subsidy, a $1500 subsidy through your electric utility, subsidies for charging stations, exemptions from the sales tax for EV buyers, etc. and so on. So, the pitch from Honest Anthony the electric car salesman is, “How much of your money will it take to put your neighbor in this crappy car?” And he’s willing to go to war on your wallet to make it happen!

This is not the proper role of government.

Especially when you consider that this really amounts to a “war” on lower income Vermonters, who can’t afford even a subsidized EV even if they wanted one, to benefit higher income Vermonters who could probably afford and EV without the subsidy, if they wanted one. This is a policy that forces the single mom driving the used minivan to subsidize the money manager driving Tesla.

I guess our government hasn’t reached the outright dictatorial point where they feel comfortable forcing us to buy the kind of car they want us to drive (as opposed to what we’d choose for ourselves). But they have no problem forcing us to buy that car, through higher taxes and fees, for someone else. A distinction without much of a difference.

Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute. Reprinted with permission from the Ethan Allen Institute Blog.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/Bahnfrend

10 thoughts on “Roper: ‘War’ on cars is a war on the poor

  1. Tip of the iceberg.. Federal and state taxes at the pump for roads and bridges ?? Electric ???

  2. Many of these idiots think the electric wires are filled up with electricity – available as needed.

    This is exactly how they are going to recharge their electric car- with just enough miles to get to work and back – – by using their Solar panels to recharge their electric car Overnight.

    The question I had, that Dave Gram shut down, was where is all this “Magic Electricity” going to come from, when in a summer heat wave we are asked to lower our AC and other high Amperage uses.

  3. A Tesla Model 3, with four wheel drive and longer range, HIGHLY ESSENTIAL in Vermont, with low temperatures, hills and snow-covered roads, costs about $50,000, plus sales tax, etc., about TWO TIMES the price of a Subaru Outback with four wheel drive getting about 29.5 mpg; my mileage.

    The Subaru is FAR MORE USEFUL for Vermonters, the reason so many of them are sold in Vermont and all of New England.
    If rental fleets calculated EVs had a lower owning and operating cost versus gasoline vehicles, they would buy them by the tens of thousands.

    It turns out, according to numerous studies, ON A LIFETIME BASIS, the CO2 reduction versus efficient gasoline vehicles is minimal, if upstream CO2 and downstream CO2 were included, even with the NE grid slowly getting cleaner, less CO2MWh, due to increased wind and solar.

    Subsidizing EVs would be at a VERY HIGH cost per metric ton of CO2 reduced, especially for a SHORT LIFE asset.

    Increased energy efficiency of buildings would be far less costly per metric ton of CO2 reduced, because they are LONG LIFE assets.
    In Vermont 95% of buildings are energy hogs, thus highly UNSUITABLE FOR HEAT PUMPS.

    Read the URL and you will be so much better informed.

  4. I would assume that Mr. Roisman drives a EV but I wonder how many of our Representatives do.

    • One I know drives a Mercedes when she’s drunk: Sen. Debbie Ingram, D-Chittenden

      I don’t think it’s electric but she’s surely charged…

  5. Another point, if I for example wanted to drive to my college town in Hartfod, CT for a one day visit, I’d have to pull off at Brattleboro for a FIVE hour recharge. Now that’s real convenience. Or don’t take a long drive. Maybe that’s what they’re after.

  6. It is true we are not well represented by our legislators, they seem to think individual rights are to be sacrificed in favor of a collective view that claims to stand for the betterment of all humanity. They have learned nothing of what the real purpose of our governance was intended as they squander our liberty for merely another good cause!

  7. Bureaucrats and their foolishness, again these Liberals in politics saving the world
    one electric vehicle at a time !!

    Hopefully, the only good news is maybe the 10,000 EV’s wanted yearly will all head west
    with the rest of the fools…………Please leave, Please !!

  8. The only “war” the fascist leftarded faction can win is the climate hoax. They can determine
    the progress by manipulating the data to suite their needed outcome just like the UN does with the IPC. Their brain dead supporters fail to even see these fools for the Nazi’s they are. Forced
    compliance on stupid idea’s that won’t work should be cause for being tarred and feathered, but in this age of more flatlanders then cows in Vt I see no change coming any time soon. I’ve never heard of the effect of cold and having to use the HEAT on the range of these worthless battery cars, but I do know my car battery is only about 1/2 as efficient at just starting the car to say nothing of running a blower on high speed. Toy battery cars may be ok in warm climate with flat land but their about as useful here as tits on a bull.. or a leftist legislature…

  9. This just proves that most of the people in Montpelier are completely out of touch with reality. We really need a good house cleaning there, in the legislature and the bureaucracy. Like 85% of them need to go.

Comments are closed.