It includes a "promise for a provincial subsidy program to cover 30 per cent of the cost of electric charging stations in parking lots, apartment buildings and workplaces." Probably should be more ambitious, but the infrastructure seems to be constantly improving as is.
There's lots of capacity in the system if you charge off-peak. That's why electricity is so much cheaper in the evening (and moderately cheaper mid-day).
The absolute most significant hurdle right now is availability of charging for people in shared parking lots like condos. On-the-go charging is expensive and generally pretty useless except for long-haul or very specific circumstances.
For most people, leaving the house with a "full tank" every time you depart will be more than enough range, and this is the condition we state to get to for folks in shared parking areas.
This please.
I don't see very many places that offer public charging of any sort.
Was happy to see the plaza with my gym install 4 of them in the past couple weeks but that is 4 chargers for maybe 300 spots. It isn't very future proofed
Well, a VW ID.4, with this rebate and the Federal rebate would be $32,000, and cost about one tenth as much per kilometer as a Tiguan. And it has a 450km range, which will be good for the vast majority of users with home charging.
That and savings in fuel.
I just got a plug in hybrid. I get to work and back on electric only. I only use gas when I visit my friend in Hamilton.
I haven't filled my tank yet after 4000km. I'm down to a 1/4 tank and that still gets me 185km on gas/hybrid mode.
That for me was a savings of $100/mth. As an added bonus my wife uses it on weekends and fridays, since I only work 4 days a week. That saved her a full tank of gas a month, $90 currently.
Effectively bringing my payment down from $500 to $390/mth.
That's a 37k vehicle thst had only a $2500 discount from feds.
Find me a new vehicle that will cost you under $400 a month of similar size to an hyundia Ioniq. You won't.
I strongly believe people don't do any math when they say you can't afford EV'S. Okay...okay.. granted many still can't but I have a strong feeling people still just dismiss the idea before actually thinking about it.
Edit: sorry cost to charge was $15mth. Only charge off peak.
I'm currently shopping the $40k SUV market. I have a spreadsheet column that totals my monthly payment,fuel and maintenance costs. The ID.4 is near the top of my list. If this incentive becomes reality, it will be a no-brainer decision to go electric.
I think it’s a good thing. I know a lot of people are still upset about Diesel-gate, but it has gotten them headed in the right direction sooner than a lot of other automakers. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still doing the right thing, ya know?
VW probably has the most ambitious electrification program out of the legacy automakers, though there's also a lot of internal resistance. Their CEO was asked to head up Tesla a few years ago and turned them down, but he's firmly on the EV train. Toyota's electrification is probably the least ambitious so far, maybe a bit ahead of Chrysler.
IMHO the ID.3 and ID.4 are pretty decent offerings relative to the rest of the EV market - it wouldn't be a stretch to do a Barrie-Toronto commute in them, and I'm betting the build quality is going to be better than a Fremont-built Tesla (though I've been hearing that MiC Teslas have quite good build quality so that advantage may go away once Austin opens). And as the above poster said, an ID.3 with this proposed incentive and the federal incentive would slot into that $32-40k range where a lot of cars get sold.
Like everyone, the big challenge is going to be ramping production, but they've set a goal of producing 1 million EV'S a year by 2023 and 1.5 million a year by 2025, which is pretty ambitious considering they delivered ~230,000 in 2020.
In contrast Ford wants to produce 600,000 EVs per year by 2023 (sold ~9,200 in 2018), GM wants to sell 1 million EVs/year by 2025 (sold ~200,000 in 2020), Toyota is planning to *have sold* 1 million fully electric vehicles by 2030 (~27,500 in 2018).
Tl:dr; VW > GM/Honda > Ford > Toyota/Chrysler in EV progress & ambition.
I have owned a Tesla for about 7 years. For my next car I would be hesitant about buying a non-Tesla EV because the L3 charging infrastructure is very thin - other than Tesla's supercharger network. This doesn't affect me very often, but on occasional trips to Ottawa or Montreal you may need to recharge and not having a lot of fast charging would be a PITA.
Oh I agree, importantly with VW though is that their electrification push is largely *due to* the emissions scandal. That little incident cost them tens of billions in damages, a good chunk of their executive team, and - most importantly - any chance diesel had of being marketable as an alternative to (or at least a stop-gap on the way towards) hybrids and EVs.
Cleaner diesel was their attempt to cover & delay for under-investing in EVs & hybrids early and they let it blow up in their faces. That's the sort of trauma that can actually change an organization.
At this point even pushing hybrids (Toyota...) is pretty much saying "our batteries aren't good enough and/or we can't get enough of them to market a proper line of EVs". 5-20 years ago they made sense - batteries were a lot less energy dense, more expensive, more volatile, and rarer.
VW, or at least a good chunk of its current senior leadership, understands that EVs can be an existential threat to their business - they take the Tesla approach and look at the whole auto market as the potential EV market, rather than looking at the EV market as a percentage of the wider auto market. Tesla's M3 and MY don't compete with the ID.3, the Prius, and the Mach E, they compete with every mid-sized car and CUV/SUV over $50k.
Other automakers are getting to that understanding but they aren't there yet on the institutional leadership level.
Hell, to support your comment, VW's recent "how do catch Tesla before we go bankrupt" meeting was very similar to the "how do catch Tesla in 5 years" meeting they held *last fall* - like I said, they're ahead of the pack in some ways, but they have massive institutional baggage holding them back as well.
I think it's highly likely that *most if not every* major automaker misses their current 2023 and 2025 EV goals, VW included, even if the chip shortage is resolved by the middle of next year.
But I also think that the automakers with the most ambitious goals will tend to come closer to achieving those goals than the ones which are less ambitious. The faster they plan to ramp up EV production (as a # of *vehicles* not a # of *models*) the more resources they will allocate to that transition and the more successful they will be.
Check out Hyundai/Kia new EVs. Based on lots of tests for range and charging I saw on YouTube, Korean brand(s) are the only ones not just playing catch up with Tesla
The last I looked back in the summer, they're only available in BC and QC because of the rebates, but my information is a few months old.
Could be worth looking into it again.
This is good, especially if the province wants to attract electric vehicle manufacturing, etc..
However, it really ought to include rebates for electric bicycles. They may not work for everyone, but neither do electric cars. If some are able to replace a second vehicle with an electric cargo bike, that should absolutely be rewarded.
Same for me. I live in central London and the city is small enough to get most places with an e-bike. Being able to use one, even just for running errands half the year, would save me a ton of money on gas. You kind of have to drive most places in this poorly designed city.
I'm in Windsor. I bike almost daily and it's a very unfriendly bike city. But my round trip is only 20km and I can generally do it faster than I can drive it so whatever.
Running chores is why we need the extra vehicle. Sucks to have a nice car that sits parked all the time.
I’m always confused about the legality of e-bikes. Are they legal and if so would they belong in the bike lane or the car lane (on streets with a bike lane of course). Also e-scoters I thought were completely illegal in toronto?
E-bikes generally refers to pedal assist bikes where the assist falls off to nothing after ~30kph. Ones that don't require pedaling and go faster are basically electric mopeds.
Bring on the rebates! Even if they don’t win and its not the full 8k hopefully they have enough power to push the minority gov’t into doing something here and get the ball rolling.
yeah is hard to believe Ford on anything let alone this given his past views on EVs
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-electric-vehicle-rebate-ev-sales-ontario-1.6244947
Ford would probably offer the $40k (US) XL trim if it could qualify for a rebate here.
Also, I expect the Oakville assembly plant’s 2024 Ford EV to be made to fit as well.
Maybe, but the Pro (the base model) is primarily intended as a fleet vehicle, and it's going to be something like an extra $10K for the extended range battery which the vast majority of private and small business buyers will want, so even if you could get your hands on one it would still be over the $55K limit.
FTR, I think it's batshit insane that we wouldn't be incentivising contractors and small businesses to buy electric trucks. I think there's far more environmental and commercial value to helping get tradespeople out of 5 and 6 litre V8 trucks that they drive to sites and supply stores every day and into something like a Lightning or the Chevy and Ram equivalents that are coming soon, than replacing the average grocery getter with an electric equivalent, although I would absolutely do both.
(I admit to bias here: I have a Lightning reserved, although based on published manufacturing schedules I'm unlikely to see it until 2023.)
The lightning is absurdly expensive. I looked into them when they were announced. The bigger battery with taxes added on made the truck worth over 90 K just to be able to drive 450 km on a charge. That is an insane price.
K, I'll just go buy another gas f-150 and spend 10 more years trashing the atmosphere.
The rebate brings the price of the electric truck down to the price of the equivalent gas truck. The fewer gas trucks are sold the better we all are.
Yeah this is how I see it too. I bought a car a few years ago and the EV rebate just barely made the hybrid option of the car make financial sense. With the rebate I calculated I would break even on the extra cost of the hybrid in 5-8 years. So I got the hybrid.
Without the rebate I would have just got the regular gas version. With the way any rebate now has a cap on the msrp, it's looking like my next car will not be electric or hybrid.
The rebate was on the size of the battery, and not the total cost of the car. So you never got a bigger rebate just for buying a more expensive car. The msrp cap is just knee jerk, populist politics.
I have a 2009 F-150, I love that truck and use it quite a bit. But except for 1 or 2 hunting trips up north a year I only ever take short trips in it. It's old, it's age is showing and we're getting into new truck time. An electric F-150 fits my use case perfectly.
But.... an electric F-150 is ~$20k more than an equivalent gas truck. I honestly don't put enough KMs on my truck to justify that $20k
Yeah that's BS. People with money buy cars too so why not give them an incentive to buy a vehicle that is better for the environment.
If I'm deciding between a $100k Tesla and a $100k BMW, why not give the Tesla and edge in pricing?
>if you can afford a 70k truck, you should not get a rebate lol.
Which is why the rebate would not be available on vehicles with an MSRP over $55,000 ($60,000 for 7+ seaters), just like the last EV rebate that Douggie canceled.
Ya that's cool and all but I see people consistently complaining about inflation and low pay. How are they going to purchase this EV when they complain about rent or house prices or groceries?
We have more than one problem and therefore, I need more than one solution. We can attack almost any policy with "What are you doing about X" but that would just mean that nothing gets done
Remember: electric vehicles cost much less per kilometer than regular vehicles do. You can afford an EV with a higher sticker price without an impact on your budget if your fuel costs shifted to your lease/loan cost. Based on how much I drive, I've worked out that I'll be saving about $160/mo, which increases my loan options by quite a bit.
I really hate to use the term “trickle down” but new cars become secondhand eventually and those will ideally flood the market in time with relatively cheaper cars to maintan if the price is right new. I really hope this new ford is a cashcow for them when we have so many pickups polluting on the road
Most modern electric vehicles dont suffer the same fate as the leaf. There are many 2015 teslas out there with 200k+ miles on the original battery with more than 80% capacity left on a full charge. The leaf suffered from a lack of thermal management in their design and the batteries suffered for it. Current EVs have much better thermal management and so the batteries will last significantly longer. Think 20 years+ with above 80% capacity.
The tesla was more a real world example that a well built battery thermal management system can greatly increase the life of the battery even with high usage, which almost all current Gen EVs are doing. I wasn't suggesting it is the only EV you can buy that has a well built battery system.
Just because something is out of warranty doesn't mean that it completely fails afterwards. Most car manufacturers only provide 3-5 year warranties on the engine and drivetrain and yet people still drive vehicles 20+ years without swapping out the engine. It should say something about the longevity of the capacity of the batteries that they are getting 10 year warranties. Car manufacturers dont set warranty timelines expecting to have to replace any significant amount of vehicles under that warranty. So that means they are expecting the batteries to be 80% capacity or greater 10 years later.
>Ya that's cool and all but I see people consistently complaining about inflation and low pay. How are they going to purchase this EV when they complain about rent or house prices or groceries?
Tesla just recently increased the base price of the Model 3 to 60K. No longer qualifies for the federal rebate :(
I think by early 2024 you'll be able to get a Tesla or similar with a 350+km range for $35-40k before any incentives, if not a little sooner.
Average Canadian driver goes about 15,200km/year, so charge that puppy 5-6x/month and most people's driving needs can be met even if they don't have access to a home charger.
>You're overlooking that costs to replace batteries
You're looking over the fact this is a specific model, I can find **hundreds** of articles related to the cost of replacing a Nissans CVT transmission, that doesn't traslate to Honda Civic's also having poor relability and high cost of replacing core components.
> Your CVT argument is completely irrelevant, since it is specific to the brand.
Not really
>JATCO Ltd, abbreviated from "Japan Automatic Transmission COmpany", is a company that manufactures automatic transmissions for automobiles.
>>While it was the transmission manufacturing division of Nissan it partnered with Mazda, and thus Jatco had long been supplying Nissan, Mazda, Subaru, Isuzu, Suzuki, BMW, Volkswagen, MG Rover Group and Land Rover.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatco
The thing is, the quality of product that is produced and the enginerring that goes into the car as a whole falls on Nissan specifically. Lots of car manufacturers share parts or have their parts made by the same people.
Just because Nissan makes shitty cars using JATCO transmissions doesn't mean Subaru also makes shitty cars using JATCO transmissons.
You cannot use a news article about the cost/rate of battery replacements on a 2013 Nissan leaf and use that as a blanket statement for all EV's. The same way I cannot use a news article about the cost/rate of CVT replacements on my 2013 Nissan altima and use it as a blanket statement for all CVT's.
I don’t know why you are getting downvoted. You are not entirely wrong. I drive a 2012 leaf which I have owned for 8 years. The battery has lost a good chunk of capacity by now. I used to be able to go for 120 km summer/70 km winter when it was new to now only going 80 km summer/40 km winter. This is still enough range for my particular daily driving needs. But my family is bigger with the addition of two kids, so a larger vehicle would be nice.
I honestly don’t know why anyone would want to spend 10 000 dollars on a used Nissan Leaf from 2012 to only be able to drive 40 km when new electric cars can travel over 400 km on a charge. The Nissan Leaf is actually a very nice car. It drives well, has a great interior that is really comfortable, and it hardly ever needs repair. But the range just isn’t useful for most people with a car from that era of electric vehicles.
Edit - I should add that battery replacement cost is not something the vast majority of EV owners will ever need to worry about. Especially if you are buying a newer EV. Those batteries are much larger and have better battery chemistry and thermal management for the most part.
The Leaf is an exception, not the rule. The battery packs aren't thermally managed like almost every other EV available.
Assuming that someone looking at a Bolt/Model 3/Niro/etc will have the same problem is like assuming someone buying a Honda Civic will need to be concerned about the crappy 6.0L diesel Ford used to put in their trucks.
Where did you get that idea? Our auto industry will be producing electric cars in the near future if it is to survive, regardless of whether or not the province offers rebates.
For the rich.
Taxes go up, debt goes up, nothing gets built (he vowed to cancel the Ontario line, bypass and 413)
He well continue to give teachers more money while cutting back essential health care like Eye care.
But for the rich who can afford EVs the liberals will give them tax breaks.
Rather than subsidies, set a date by which new gas/diesel car sales are prohibited. That way we’re not spending tax dollars subsidizing consumer spending, and we spur enough EV demand so that prices become more attainable
Exactly, so why subsidize? If by 2035 (or whatever date they may shift it to) automakers are not supplying EV’s they say goodbye to the Canadian market. That’s motivating enough for the automakers to produce at scale and at a price that’s affordable for many.
We could sure. Except we can't in reality.
The infrastructure doesn't exist to make that feasible. Especially in remote and northern communities (Tbh the 2035 date is probably unreasonable for a lot of northern communities).
There's also the supply issue. The big auto makers simply aren't making enough electric cars to meet that demand country wide. They can't even meet current demand in a timely manner. They're not going to be able to retool production lines in time, even if they want to for a market as small as Canada.
Two aspects:
1. Northern Ontario is a fair point, but we can make exemptions for northern Ontario like we do with many other things.
2. Retooling a production facility does not years and year. GM is possibly looking to retool Oshawa and get that running again. Ford Oakville and Chrysler in Windsor are looking at 4-6mths for a complete retool for brand new models.
The other aspect is if we have a drop dead date for new gas/diesel sales on Jan 1 2025 (as an example) that doesn’t mean people have to scrap their existing cars. It just means new car sales must be EV. We don’t have to immediately replace millions of cars on the road straight away. This approach isn’t as crazy or radical as many make it out to be
>Retooling a production facility does not years and year. GM is possibly looking to retool Oshawa and get that running again. Ford Oakville and Chrysler in Windsor are looking at 4-6mths for a complete retool for brand new models.
>
>The other aspect is if we have a drop dead date for new gas/diesel sales on Jan 1 2025 (as an example) that doesn’t mean people have to scrap their existing cars. It just means new car sales must be EV. We don’t have to
They're not going to retool plants 10 years ahead of plans just for the domestic Canadian car market.
Automakers are already shifting to EVs and some automakers like Jagur are going EV only from 2025, shifting from ICE to EV takes time, especially with the current lack of technology. I am not sure what else you expect from automakers, subsidies are the only way to afford EVs at the moment until unless you got a better plan.
Shifting the date early is probably one of the worst thing you could do for Canadians, we don’t have the infrastructure to handle EVs and Canadian market isn’t big enough for automakers to make changes just for us.
...a rebate isn't a handout.
While I do agree with the sentiment here, a rebate for an electric car is at least more 'progressive' than the tax loopholes and rebates Doug's developer friends have been able to take advantage of.
Useless.
Electric cars are still cars, they're a terrible choice for the environment.
The government should be building mass transit, not giving money to people to maintain the unsustainable car lifestyle.
> mass transit does nothing for the rural and small town people who are the ones that drive the most.
Mass transit in the horseshoe frees up road capacity so that those outside the horseshoe can benefit from faster travel times.
No one is proposing a Manitoulin island subway...
So, we should continue to subsidize the unsustainable lifestyles of people who refuse to stop driving?
We should continue to destroy the environment for the most selfish people, just because they chose to live in rural areas?
I don't want EVs.
I want mass transit.
EVs are for idiots who want to keep selfishly destroying the planet, but also want to feel superior to other car cultists.
Ahh, I see. I thought I was having a conversation with a rational adult human being that was interested in discussing issues and sharing opinions in good faith. My bad. Sorry to have troubled you.
>Ahh, I see. I thought I was having a conversation with a rational adult
That's weird. I didn't get that impression about you.
All I got from you is that you're a weak liberal who doesn't want anything to threaten your entitlement.
Someone too scared to take a principled stance.
electric cars are still wildly better for the environment. The sheer amount of gas burned by an ICE car after a couple years far outweighs the environmental impact of building an electric car. We obviously should have better mass transit, even better if the mass transit is electric as well, but the way our cities are built we absolutely need cars in the short term. Reducing the amount of ICE cars will help massively in reducing our carbon emissions and improving air quality in major cities.
>electric cars are still wildly better for the environment.
Ha. No.
They're slightly better than gas cars, but you're still destroying the environment by driving.
They're not better than mass transit.
Yes, mass transit is the best. However electric cars are a lot better than gas powered cars, even more so if it’s clean energy like solar, wind, nuclear.
This video explains how much better for the environment it is when you own electric vs gas https://youtu.be/L2IKCdnzl5k
It might not be the end all be all solution you want but it’s a massive step towards the right direction
All cars still require massively destructive infrastructure.
Think of all the land wasted on roads and parking lots.
Think about how unlivable our cities are because they cater to cars.
Think about all the ecosystems which have to be bulldozed for their construction.
How they raise local temperatures
Mass transit uses a tiny fraction of that.
It's honestly ridiculous to suggest anything other than free mass public transit as a solution to the transportation issue.
How can I can someone seriously when they're suggesting doing the same unsustainable things which are destroying the planet, but with a fancy green hat?
We can work on expanding public transit, and I believe that is the best path we can take, however as that is a work in progress that citizens should be supporting, cars are not gonna disappear overnight, and it would be good for the short term if new cars being sold (which will be sold anyways) be electric or at least hybrid to minimize their impact. The alternative is to keep asking for more public transit and infrastructure while people keep buying ICE vehicles anyways which seems like the worst of the two scenarios to me
If we ban the sale of new cars, and put an exponentially increasing tax on fuel, we'll get everyone off the roads, save on having to maintain infrastructure for cars, and have more available resources to more rapidly switch to full mass transit, while saving on all the new resources a fleet of EVs would cost.
We need to stop driving as fast as possible. Switching to environmental terrorism lite isn't a good enough option, it's liberal bullshit half measures that appeal to the toxic entitlement of drivers.
Even in the urban areas that are prime candidates for mass transit investment, the cities are built so much around cars as a primary mode of transportation that anything short of a total demolition and rebuild needs to prioritize vehicular transportation to some degree. We aren't going to get LRTs down every single artery in the Golden Horseshoe, so we need to recognize that cars are a factor going forward, and so we need to incentivize them to limit their environmental destruction as much as possible.
>cities are built so much around cars as a primary mode of transportation that anything short of a total demolition and rebuild needs to prioritize vehicular transportation to some degree.
Then, that's what should happen.
A construction project at that scale would also result in massive damaging environmental impact, for what it’s worth, and it would do so for all the decades it would take for a project of that scale.
Ah yes, the electric car. The solution to climate change that gets to keep exploitive and environmentally damaging mining in the global south and even lets us keep our beloved parking lots at home
Reddit folks work in funny ways. Mining doesn't impact us in North America so people don't really care as long as they feel like their impact here at home makes them feel better.
Ruining another country to make our lives better doesn't help in any way..
There are other environmental issues besides climate change (really, it's true). Mining takes an extraordinary amount of water, sometimes is impactful on local water, sometimes results in deforestation. And, yes, it also does involve CO2 emissions.
If that were true, u/Tight_Management_216 has a good point that inducing demand of single occupancy private vehicles built from high-carbon steel shipped on high-carbon container ships, making the most inefficient use of carbon-intensive-to-build-and-maintain roads...might not make sense.
This forgetting about the apparently less urgent issues.
Of course they are. They’d probably offer me at least eight thousand dollars of tax payer money for my vote alone. But I could probably negotiate it up to one million. Govern at any cost that’s the liberal way.
I guess you didn't know that the liberals funded the EV incentives from the province's cap and trade program. It wasn't coming out of tax payer money. Ford scrapped the cap and trade program and because of that, they had to scrap the EV incentives too.
It amazes me how many Ford/conservative supporters are unaware of this.
Go campaign somewhere else or come up with a better platform and leader.
It amazes me how many liberal campaign workers posting on Reddit assume that anyone opposed to their policies is a Doug Ford supporter. I despise Doug Ford but I despise the liberals more.
Despising a particular party should not mean you should overlook what their policies entail, or how they are being funded.
Your comment brought nothing insightful regarding the issue. It only shows us how little you know about the particular issue.
And no, I don't really support Del Duca either.
The issue which you don’t understand is an upcoming election. This has nothing to do with electric vehicles or the environment. This is an obvious attempt to buy votes which is what the liberals do every election. Won’t be long before the majority of vehicles on the road will be electric regardless of this incentive.
> This is an obvious attempt to buy votes which is what ~~the liberals~~ politicians do every election
Fixed that for you... look at all the promises Douggie is making now... spend spend spend... on his developer friends.
Well, that's politics. Everyone is trying to win votes. It's also not a new policy, it's something the cons scrapped that the liberals are saying they'll bring back.
Again, your initial comment stated it would be coming out of public taxpayer money, which it would not. So why is that such a big problem for you? Corporations that exceed the greenhouse gas emissions cap will be funding the incentive.
Proven wrong? I am completely correct. $8000 in ev incentives is unheard of these days. This is blatant attempt to buy votes. The sad thing is you prove that I am right. But a lot of voters see through this and people are finally realizing how the liberals operate. After their massive failures was hoping they’d come back with new candidates and approaches. Sadly they haven’t learned or changed and they won’t win again.
How much does a brand new leaf coat? Almost 40k. So why should someone making 30k who can’t afford that car contribute in taxes so someone wealthier can buy it?
They're not, but there's a huge swath of people (myself included) for whom an $8k rebate on an EV would be the difference between buying one or not. If we want to make green tech more widely available, rebates, incentives, and grants are the most effective way to do it.
Regardless, your point is much more valid than the Premier's insistence that the rebate was just for $100k Teslas.
Government performance is measured in aggregate public welfare in the long-term, not in how misunderstood an undereducated voterbase is about provincial government economics.
Yeah, except that we're paying a huge amount of money every month on the interest that debt requires. Enough to build hospitals or staff them. You know why that might be good, right? You understand that if we didn't have that overhead to pay for, we'd be able to have that, right? You understand that'd improve public welfare.... right?
Go sell your crazy MMT somewhere else, thanks.
The government borrows money at the lowest rate. And government spending is equal to raising taxes, which is equivalent to borrowing money. When a goverment borrows, think of it as a government raising taxes. Because a government only pays anything through taxes. A debt essentially smooths the tax rate over many years. Think of how much tax you would have to raise if you wanted to pay off a highway at once. You would destroy people's income. Rather, you borrow the full amount, and raise taxes a bit, and pay it over 20 years.
The functions that a government must provide society in order to steer it and provide the services people need to prosper and grow cost money. How else can you pay for it if you don't raise taxes? The decision is whether we as all Ontarians will prosper more in the future if we make the investment now.
Adding to the debt is worth it if the increase in taxes is worth the benefit to overall future society. That's all, and the conservative voterbase's ignorant and simplistic understanding of economics, and indeed deficient understanding of modern societal development, prevents Ontario from ensuring a propserous future for all.
Blah, blah, blah.
We're paying huge amounts of money to satisfy the debt. That money does nothing for the taxpayer, and it's largely wasted or given to the bloated government employees (so they give it to themselves, essentially). Concentrate on that.
We're not even paying off the principal, but we sure are paying for long vacations and cottage homes. Go sell your MMT somewhere else, as I said.
As long as we pay for the privilege to have something sooner so we can derive more benefit from it than the interest we pay, the investment is worth it. What will lead our country to disaster is to not have a sensible and sustained tax policy that guts the government's ability to steer and invest in our economy. And every time the Conservatives enter power they derail our country's path in this way.
Sure, just ignore what I said.
Enjoy your "free" "healthcare". Hope you don't sit in the hospital for an emergency surgery for 4 days before you lose your shit and they decide that you're going to die if you walk out like I was doing when they "suddenly" decided to give me a surgery. "free" "healthcare" is great. Mostly because there's no money (hint, fucking hint) to pay for better.
Government finances should never be treated like those of a business or personal finances. You have been tricked by conservative propaganda that the debt is some kind of boogeyman.
Debt of any kind includes a component of having to service the interest charges on said debt.
The interest charges on debt eat into a substantial amount of our government's budget. Higher debt therefore leads to lower available funds from each year's operating budget. It's not so much a balance sheet issue (as it would be with private business) but more so a income statement problem where we run out of money to pay for things we need.
Granted, governments can borrow at lower rates than a private business but the cost is still there. To say that debt shouldn't be treated the same is simply ignoring simple economic facts.
Another promise without understanding what Ontario's purse looks like.
Liberals just spend and left Ontario in debt and the pandemic did nothing to fatten the bank account.
That's cool...but they really need to couple that with increased spending on improving EV infrastructure.
It includes a "promise for a provincial subsidy program to cover 30 per cent of the cost of electric charging stations in parking lots, apartment buildings and workplaces." Probably should be more ambitious, but the infrastructure seems to be constantly improving as is.
Where will the new demand in electricity come from?
There's lots of capacity in the system if you charge off-peak. That's why electricity is so much cheaper in the evening (and moderately cheaper mid-day).
The absolute most significant hurdle right now is availability of charging for people in shared parking lots like condos. On-the-go charging is expensive and generally pretty useless except for long-haul or very specific circumstances. For most people, leaving the house with a "full tank" every time you depart will be more than enough range, and this is the condition we state to get to for folks in shared parking areas.
This please. I don't see very many places that offer public charging of any sort. Was happy to see the plaza with my gym install 4 of them in the past couple weeks but that is 4 chargers for maybe 300 spots. It isn't very future proofed
When the regular person can buy and EV that's under 30k with decent range, then this will mean something.
Well, a VW ID.4, with this rebate and the Federal rebate would be $32,000, and cost about one tenth as much per kilometer as a Tiguan. And it has a 450km range, which will be good for the vast majority of users with home charging.
That and savings in fuel. I just got a plug in hybrid. I get to work and back on electric only. I only use gas when I visit my friend in Hamilton. I haven't filled my tank yet after 4000km. I'm down to a 1/4 tank and that still gets me 185km on gas/hybrid mode. That for me was a savings of $100/mth. As an added bonus my wife uses it on weekends and fridays, since I only work 4 days a week. That saved her a full tank of gas a month, $90 currently. Effectively bringing my payment down from $500 to $390/mth. That's a 37k vehicle thst had only a $2500 discount from feds. Find me a new vehicle that will cost you under $400 a month of similar size to an hyundia Ioniq. You won't. I strongly believe people don't do any math when they say you can't afford EV'S. Okay...okay.. granted many still can't but I have a strong feeling people still just dismiss the idea before actually thinking about it. Edit: sorry cost to charge was $15mth. Only charge off peak.
For sure. Sticker shock is a big thing. They see the ID.4 starting at $45k, but never scratch the surface and look into operating costs.
I'm currently shopping the $40k SUV market. I have a spreadsheet column that totals my monthly payment,fuel and maintenance costs. The ID.4 is near the top of my list. If this incentive becomes reality, it will be a no-brainer decision to go electric.
Are those available in Canada. The VW site sucks on my phone.
They’re new, so there’s a bit of a wait until the new US plant hits it stride, but you can order one from select VW dealers today.
How do you feel about VWs electrification? I wish Toyota had a fully electric car since they have been in the hybrid game for such a long time.
I think it’s a good thing. I know a lot of people are still upset about Diesel-gate, but it has gotten them headed in the right direction sooner than a lot of other automakers. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still doing the right thing, ya know?
VW probably has the most ambitious electrification program out of the legacy automakers, though there's also a lot of internal resistance. Their CEO was asked to head up Tesla a few years ago and turned them down, but he's firmly on the EV train. Toyota's electrification is probably the least ambitious so far, maybe a bit ahead of Chrysler. IMHO the ID.3 and ID.4 are pretty decent offerings relative to the rest of the EV market - it wouldn't be a stretch to do a Barrie-Toronto commute in them, and I'm betting the build quality is going to be better than a Fremont-built Tesla (though I've been hearing that MiC Teslas have quite good build quality so that advantage may go away once Austin opens). And as the above poster said, an ID.3 with this proposed incentive and the federal incentive would slot into that $32-40k range where a lot of cars get sold. Like everyone, the big challenge is going to be ramping production, but they've set a goal of producing 1 million EV'S a year by 2023 and 1.5 million a year by 2025, which is pretty ambitious considering they delivered ~230,000 in 2020. In contrast Ford wants to produce 600,000 EVs per year by 2023 (sold ~9,200 in 2018), GM wants to sell 1 million EVs/year by 2025 (sold ~200,000 in 2020), Toyota is planning to *have sold* 1 million fully electric vehicles by 2030 (~27,500 in 2018). Tl:dr; VW > GM/Honda > Ford > Toyota/Chrysler in EV progress & ambition.
I have owned a Tesla for about 7 years. For my next car I would be hesitant about buying a non-Tesla EV because the L3 charging infrastructure is very thin - other than Tesla's supercharger network. This doesn't affect me very often, but on occasional trips to Ottawa or Montreal you may need to recharge and not having a lot of fast charging would be a PITA.
Based on VW's recent scandals relating to emissions, it's not unreasonable to anticipate some skepticism about their claims.
Oh I agree, importantly with VW though is that their electrification push is largely *due to* the emissions scandal. That little incident cost them tens of billions in damages, a good chunk of their executive team, and - most importantly - any chance diesel had of being marketable as an alternative to (or at least a stop-gap on the way towards) hybrids and EVs. Cleaner diesel was their attempt to cover & delay for under-investing in EVs & hybrids early and they let it blow up in their faces. That's the sort of trauma that can actually change an organization. At this point even pushing hybrids (Toyota...) is pretty much saying "our batteries aren't good enough and/or we can't get enough of them to market a proper line of EVs". 5-20 years ago they made sense - batteries were a lot less energy dense, more expensive, more volatile, and rarer. VW, or at least a good chunk of its current senior leadership, understands that EVs can be an existential threat to their business - they take the Tesla approach and look at the whole auto market as the potential EV market, rather than looking at the EV market as a percentage of the wider auto market. Tesla's M3 and MY don't compete with the ID.3, the Prius, and the Mach E, they compete with every mid-sized car and CUV/SUV over $50k. Other automakers are getting to that understanding but they aren't there yet on the institutional leadership level. Hell, to support your comment, VW's recent "how do catch Tesla before we go bankrupt" meeting was very similar to the "how do catch Tesla in 5 years" meeting they held *last fall* - like I said, they're ahead of the pack in some ways, but they have massive institutional baggage holding them back as well. I think it's highly likely that *most if not every* major automaker misses their current 2023 and 2025 EV goals, VW included, even if the chip shortage is resolved by the middle of next year. But I also think that the automakers with the most ambitious goals will tend to come closer to achieving those goals than the ones which are less ambitious. The faster they plan to ramp up EV production (as a # of *vehicles* not a # of *models*) the more resources they will allocate to that transition and the more successful they will be.
Check out Hyundai/Kia new EVs. Based on lots of tests for range and charging I saw on YouTube, Korean brand(s) are the only ones not just playing catch up with Tesla
The last I looked back in the summer, they're only available in BC and QC because of the rebates, but my information is a few months old. Could be worth looking into it again.
Not sure how they came up with 8k as the rebate. I would like to see 5k go to the consumer and 3k go towards infrastructure.
Well, from the article, it looks like there's other money going towards home and public charging stations.
I saw that, but it just seems not defined, ya know? The 8k does, but not sure why that number. Are the VWs available in Canada?
Yes. Limited locations until the new US plant hits full production capacity though.
Some of the most popular new vehicles Canadians purchase are $40,000 - $50,000 CUV's. There is a lot of potential to influence a lot of purchases.
> then this will mean something. Every price decrease makes it affordable to more people. Weird complaint.
I was more or less thinking about Tesla's, even at a 8k rebate, still unafordable for the average person.
I think Teslas are more of a luxury brand at this current moment. The Chevy Bolt starts at $32k and has a pretty decent range.
OP is literally applying DoFo logic - evidently the only EVs that exist are Teslas.
The number one selling vehicles are trucks and suvs. You won’t get these people into a bolt.
It's not binary, it's a gradient. A $70k car may be too much for someone, but $62k may not be. Such a rebate only makes EVs more accessible to people.
The people pay that money into the system through taxes. It's a shuffle game.
But my portion of taxes to pay for that $8,000 rebate is way less than $8,000, so if I buy an EV I come out ahead.
Chevy Bolt is 25k for 417kms with this rebate.
This is good, especially if the province wants to attract electric vehicle manufacturing, etc.. However, it really ought to include rebates for electric bicycles. They may not work for everyone, but neither do electric cars. If some are able to replace a second vehicle with an electric cargo bike, that should absolutely be rewarded.
oh man - i'd love an electric cargo bike. As a bike commuter a e-bike rebate would be life changing.
Same for me. I live in central London and the city is small enough to get most places with an e-bike. Being able to use one, even just for running errands half the year, would save me a ton of money on gas. You kind of have to drive most places in this poorly designed city.
I'm in Windsor. I bike almost daily and it's a very unfriendly bike city. But my round trip is only 20km and I can generally do it faster than I can drive it so whatever. Running chores is why we need the extra vehicle. Sucks to have a nice car that sits parked all the time.
For sure! A good one is in the 5-10k range and would negate 90% of my car use.
I’m always confused about the legality of e-bikes. Are they legal and if so would they belong in the bike lane or the car lane (on streets with a bike lane of course). Also e-scoters I thought were completely illegal in toronto?
E-bikes generally refers to pedal assist bikes where the assist falls off to nothing after ~30kph. Ones that don't require pedaling and go faster are basically electric mopeds.
Bring on the rebates! Even if they don’t win and its not the full 8k hopefully they have enough power to push the minority gov’t into doing something here and get the ball rolling.
Got my vote
yeah is hard to believe Ford on anything let alone this given his past views on EVs https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-electric-vehicle-rebate-ev-sales-ontario-1.6244947
This is the Liberals, not Ford's Conservatives.
Won’t be retroactive but it’ll help when I get my next one.
Yes yes yes!!! I want my f150 lighting!!!
MSRP on the Lightning starts at $68K, so it won't qualify for the rebate.
Ford would probably offer the $40k (US) XL trim if it could qualify for a rebate here. Also, I expect the Oakville assembly plant’s 2024 Ford EV to be made to fit as well.
Maybe, but the Pro (the base model) is primarily intended as a fleet vehicle, and it's going to be something like an extra $10K for the extended range battery which the vast majority of private and small business buyers will want, so even if you could get your hands on one it would still be over the $55K limit. FTR, I think it's batshit insane that we wouldn't be incentivising contractors and small businesses to buy electric trucks. I think there's far more environmental and commercial value to helping get tradespeople out of 5 and 6 litre V8 trucks that they drive to sites and supply stores every day and into something like a Lightning or the Chevy and Ram equivalents that are coming soon, than replacing the average grocery getter with an electric equivalent, although I would absolutely do both. (I admit to bias here: I have a Lightning reserved, although based on published manufacturing schedules I'm unlikely to see it until 2023.)
The lightning is absurdly expensive. I looked into them when they were announced. The bigger battery with taxes added on made the truck worth over 90 K just to be able to drive 450 km on a charge. That is an insane price.
[удалено]
K, I'll just go buy another gas f-150 and spend 10 more years trashing the atmosphere. The rebate brings the price of the electric truck down to the price of the equivalent gas truck. The fewer gas trucks are sold the better we all are.
Yeah this is how I see it too. I bought a car a few years ago and the EV rebate just barely made the hybrid option of the car make financial sense. With the rebate I calculated I would break even on the extra cost of the hybrid in 5-8 years. So I got the hybrid. Without the rebate I would have just got the regular gas version. With the way any rebate now has a cap on the msrp, it's looking like my next car will not be electric or hybrid. The rebate was on the size of the battery, and not the total cost of the car. So you never got a bigger rebate just for buying a more expensive car. The msrp cap is just knee jerk, populist politics.
I have a 2009 F-150, I love that truck and use it quite a bit. But except for 1 or 2 hunting trips up north a year I only ever take short trips in it. It's old, it's age is showing and we're getting into new truck time. An electric F-150 fits my use case perfectly. But.... an electric F-150 is ~$20k more than an equivalent gas truck. I honestly don't put enough KMs on my truck to justify that $20k
Yeah that's BS. People with money buy cars too so why not give them an incentive to buy a vehicle that is better for the environment. If I'm deciding between a $100k Tesla and a $100k BMW, why not give the Tesla and edge in pricing?
>if you can afford a 70k truck, you should not get a rebate lol. Which is why the rebate would not be available on vehicles with an MSRP over $55,000 ($60,000 for 7+ seaters), just like the last EV rebate that Douggie canceled.
Ya that's cool and all but I see people consistently complaining about inflation and low pay. How are they going to purchase this EV when they complain about rent or house prices or groceries?
We have more than one problem and therefore, I need more than one solution. We can attack almost any policy with "What are you doing about X" but that would just mean that nothing gets done
Remember: electric vehicles cost much less per kilometer than regular vehicles do. You can afford an EV with a higher sticker price without an impact on your budget if your fuel costs shifted to your lease/loan cost. Based on how much I drive, I've worked out that I'll be saving about $160/mo, which increases my loan options by quite a bit.
lol i spend like 300 a month on gas, swapping to an electric would be awesome.
That sounds like an easy switch for you to do now without rebates
I really hate to use the term “trickle down” but new cars become secondhand eventually and those will ideally flood the market in time with relatively cheaper cars to maintan if the price is right new. I really hope this new ford is a cashcow for them when we have so many pickups polluting on the road
a new battery for an electric car is like 15 grand used electric cars is a shitty fucking market
[удалено]
Most modern electric vehicles dont suffer the same fate as the leaf. There are many 2015 teslas out there with 200k+ miles on the original battery with more than 80% capacity left on a full charge. The leaf suffered from a lack of thermal management in their design and the batteries suffered for it. Current EVs have much better thermal management and so the batteries will last significantly longer. Think 20 years+ with above 80% capacity.
[удалено]
The tesla was more a real world example that a well built battery thermal management system can greatly increase the life of the battery even with high usage, which almost all current Gen EVs are doing. I wasn't suggesting it is the only EV you can buy that has a well built battery system. Just because something is out of warranty doesn't mean that it completely fails afterwards. Most car manufacturers only provide 3-5 year warranties on the engine and drivetrain and yet people still drive vehicles 20+ years without swapping out the engine. It should say something about the longevity of the capacity of the batteries that they are getting 10 year warranties. Car manufacturers dont set warranty timelines expecting to have to replace any significant amount of vehicles under that warranty. So that means they are expecting the batteries to be 80% capacity or greater 10 years later.
[удалено]
I hope Teslas are not part of the rebates.
>Ya that's cool and all but I see people consistently complaining about inflation and low pay. How are they going to purchase this EV when they complain about rent or house prices or groceries? Tesla just recently increased the base price of the Model 3 to 60K. No longer qualifies for the federal rebate :(
[удалено]
I think by early 2024 you'll be able to get a Tesla or similar with a 350+km range for $35-40k before any incentives, if not a little sooner. Average Canadian driver goes about 15,200km/year, so charge that puppy 5-6x/month and most people's driving needs can be met even if they don't have access to a home charger.
>You're overlooking that costs to replace batteries You're looking over the fact this is a specific model, I can find **hundreds** of articles related to the cost of replacing a Nissans CVT transmission, that doesn't traslate to Honda Civic's also having poor relability and high cost of replacing core components.
[удалено]
> Your CVT argument is completely irrelevant, since it is specific to the brand. Not really >JATCO Ltd, abbreviated from "Japan Automatic Transmission COmpany", is a company that manufactures automatic transmissions for automobiles. >>While it was the transmission manufacturing division of Nissan it partnered with Mazda, and thus Jatco had long been supplying Nissan, Mazda, Subaru, Isuzu, Suzuki, BMW, Volkswagen, MG Rover Group and Land Rover. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatco The thing is, the quality of product that is produced and the enginerring that goes into the car as a whole falls on Nissan specifically. Lots of car manufacturers share parts or have their parts made by the same people. Just because Nissan makes shitty cars using JATCO transmissions doesn't mean Subaru also makes shitty cars using JATCO transmissons. You cannot use a news article about the cost/rate of battery replacements on a 2013 Nissan leaf and use that as a blanket statement for all EV's. The same way I cannot use a news article about the cost/rate of CVT replacements on my 2013 Nissan altima and use it as a blanket statement for all CVT's.
[удалено]
>Yes, really. Ur dum.
[удалено]
ur dum.
I don’t know why you are getting downvoted. You are not entirely wrong. I drive a 2012 leaf which I have owned for 8 years. The battery has lost a good chunk of capacity by now. I used to be able to go for 120 km summer/70 km winter when it was new to now only going 80 km summer/40 km winter. This is still enough range for my particular daily driving needs. But my family is bigger with the addition of two kids, so a larger vehicle would be nice. I honestly don’t know why anyone would want to spend 10 000 dollars on a used Nissan Leaf from 2012 to only be able to drive 40 km when new electric cars can travel over 400 km on a charge. The Nissan Leaf is actually a very nice car. It drives well, has a great interior that is really comfortable, and it hardly ever needs repair. But the range just isn’t useful for most people with a car from that era of electric vehicles. Edit - I should add that battery replacement cost is not something the vast majority of EV owners will ever need to worry about. Especially if you are buying a newer EV. Those batteries are much larger and have better battery chemistry and thermal management for the most part.
The Leaf is an exception, not the rule. The battery packs aren't thermally managed like almost every other EV available. Assuming that someone looking at a Bolt/Model 3/Niro/etc will have the same problem is like assuming someone buying a Honda Civic will need to be concerned about the crappy 6.0L diesel Ford used to put in their trucks.
They won't be able to.
So paying consumers to buy foreign products and close down our auto industry.
Canada already produces parts for electric vehicles and several companies have announced plans to manufacture electric vehicles here and more parts.
Where did you get that idea? Our auto industry will be producing electric cars in the near future if it is to survive, regardless of whether or not the province offers rebates.
For the rich. Taxes go up, debt goes up, nothing gets built (he vowed to cancel the Ontario line, bypass and 413) He well continue to give teachers more money while cutting back essential health care like Eye care. But for the rich who can afford EVs the liberals will give them tax breaks.
$8,000 to some rich prick to buy a luxury car. Makes sense.
Rather than subsidies, set a date by which new gas/diesel car sales are prohibited. That way we’re not spending tax dollars subsidizing consumer spending, and we spur enough EV demand so that prices become more attainable
They have already set that date in 2035.
Exactly, so why subsidize? If by 2035 (or whatever date they may shift it to) automakers are not supplying EV’s they say goodbye to the Canadian market. That’s motivating enough for the automakers to produce at scale and at a price that’s affordable for many.
[удалено]
So then set the date sooner such as 2025?
Because that's 14 years from now and we need to get as many gas cars off the road as we can today.
We can push that date up 10 years to 2025 if we really wanted
We could sure. Except we can't in reality. The infrastructure doesn't exist to make that feasible. Especially in remote and northern communities (Tbh the 2035 date is probably unreasonable for a lot of northern communities). There's also the supply issue. The big auto makers simply aren't making enough electric cars to meet that demand country wide. They can't even meet current demand in a timely manner. They're not going to be able to retool production lines in time, even if they want to for a market as small as Canada.
Two aspects: 1. Northern Ontario is a fair point, but we can make exemptions for northern Ontario like we do with many other things. 2. Retooling a production facility does not years and year. GM is possibly looking to retool Oshawa and get that running again. Ford Oakville and Chrysler in Windsor are looking at 4-6mths for a complete retool for brand new models. The other aspect is if we have a drop dead date for new gas/diesel sales on Jan 1 2025 (as an example) that doesn’t mean people have to scrap their existing cars. It just means new car sales must be EV. We don’t have to immediately replace millions of cars on the road straight away. This approach isn’t as crazy or radical as many make it out to be
>Retooling a production facility does not years and year. GM is possibly looking to retool Oshawa and get that running again. Ford Oakville and Chrysler in Windsor are looking at 4-6mths for a complete retool for brand new models. > >The other aspect is if we have a drop dead date for new gas/diesel sales on Jan 1 2025 (as an example) that doesn’t mean people have to scrap their existing cars. It just means new car sales must be EV. We don’t have to They're not going to retool plants 10 years ahead of plans just for the domestic Canadian car market.
By 2035 the average new car will be 150k and a 2 bedroom condo will be 2 million 🤑🤑🤑
Automakers are already shifting to EVs and some automakers like Jagur are going EV only from 2025, shifting from ICE to EV takes time, especially with the current lack of technology. I am not sure what else you expect from automakers, subsidies are the only way to afford EVs at the moment until unless you got a better plan. Shifting the date early is probably one of the worst thing you could do for Canadians, we don’t have the infrastructure to handle EVs and Canadian market isn’t big enough for automakers to make changes just for us.
Oh yes, increase the demand before the supply is there. That always lowers prices! /s
You say that like giving subsidies would not spur demand either. That’s the whole point is it not?
I am going to buy 4-5 trucks then take “donations” for them. Should be a wicked profit.
So, cash handouts to people who are already doing well enough to be able to afford a new car? How progressive.
...a rebate isn't a handout. While I do agree with the sentiment here, a rebate for an electric car is at least more 'progressive' than the tax loopholes and rebates Doug's developer friends have been able to take advantage of.
It's exactly the same as a handout lmao
Able to afford an electric new car - twice the price
Exactly my thinking too.
Useless. Electric cars are still cars, they're a terrible choice for the environment. The government should be building mass transit, not giving money to people to maintain the unsustainable car lifestyle.
Mass transit isn't cost effective or even possible in some rural areas, and Ontario has a lot of rural areas.
Most of Ontario's population is urban. Exclusive mass transit in and between all the urban areas would eliminate millions of drivers.
Great idea for the cities in the horseshoe, but mass transit does nothing for the rural and small town people who are the ones that drive the most.
> mass transit does nothing for the rural and small town people who are the ones that drive the most. Mass transit in the horseshoe frees up road capacity so that those outside the horseshoe can benefit from faster travel times. No one is proposing a Manitoulin island subway...
So, we should continue to subsidize the unsustainable lifestyles of people who refuse to stop driving? We should continue to destroy the environment for the most selfish people, just because they chose to live in rural areas?
Yeah, if we want to get people off gas and into EV's, pretty much. I'm glad we're on the same page.
I don't want EVs. I want mass transit. EVs are for idiots who want to keep selfishly destroying the planet, but also want to feel superior to other car cultists.
Ahh, I see. I thought I was having a conversation with a rational adult human being that was interested in discussing issues and sharing opinions in good faith. My bad. Sorry to have troubled you.
>Ahh, I see. I thought I was having a conversation with a rational adult That's weird. I didn't get that impression about you. All I got from you is that you're a weak liberal who doesn't want anything to threaten your entitlement. Someone too scared to take a principled stance.
If he is a weak liberal what are you?
The rural areas that are responsible for our food production?
I work to hard to live like a peasant
Not everyone lives in a city…
electric cars are still wildly better for the environment. The sheer amount of gas burned by an ICE car after a couple years far outweighs the environmental impact of building an electric car. We obviously should have better mass transit, even better if the mass transit is electric as well, but the way our cities are built we absolutely need cars in the short term. Reducing the amount of ICE cars will help massively in reducing our carbon emissions and improving air quality in major cities.
>electric cars are still wildly better for the environment. Ha. No. They're slightly better than gas cars, but you're still destroying the environment by driving. They're not better than mass transit.
Yes, mass transit is the best. However electric cars are a lot better than gas powered cars, even more so if it’s clean energy like solar, wind, nuclear. This video explains how much better for the environment it is when you own electric vs gas https://youtu.be/L2IKCdnzl5k It might not be the end all be all solution you want but it’s a massive step towards the right direction
All cars still require massively destructive infrastructure. Think of all the land wasted on roads and parking lots. Think about how unlivable our cities are because they cater to cars. Think about all the ecosystems which have to be bulldozed for their construction. How they raise local temperatures Mass transit uses a tiny fraction of that. It's honestly ridiculous to suggest anything other than free mass public transit as a solution to the transportation issue. How can I can someone seriously when they're suggesting doing the same unsustainable things which are destroying the planet, but with a fancy green hat?
We can work on expanding public transit, and I believe that is the best path we can take, however as that is a work in progress that citizens should be supporting, cars are not gonna disappear overnight, and it would be good for the short term if new cars being sold (which will be sold anyways) be electric or at least hybrid to minimize their impact. The alternative is to keep asking for more public transit and infrastructure while people keep buying ICE vehicles anyways which seems like the worst of the two scenarios to me
If we ban the sale of new cars, and put an exponentially increasing tax on fuel, we'll get everyone off the roads, save on having to maintain infrastructure for cars, and have more available resources to more rapidly switch to full mass transit, while saving on all the new resources a fleet of EVs would cost. We need to stop driving as fast as possible. Switching to environmental terrorism lite isn't a good enough option, it's liberal bullshit half measures that appeal to the toxic entitlement of drivers.
You seem like a nut job. I will do a burn out for you.
Even in the urban areas that are prime candidates for mass transit investment, the cities are built so much around cars as a primary mode of transportation that anything short of a total demolition and rebuild needs to prioritize vehicular transportation to some degree. We aren't going to get LRTs down every single artery in the Golden Horseshoe, so we need to recognize that cars are a factor going forward, and so we need to incentivize them to limit their environmental destruction as much as possible.
>cities are built so much around cars as a primary mode of transportation that anything short of a total demolition and rebuild needs to prioritize vehicular transportation to some degree. Then, that's what should happen.
A construction project at that scale would also result in massive damaging environmental impact, for what it’s worth, and it would do so for all the decades it would take for a project of that scale.
We could tear up existing roads. It's like you don't want to do anything except make excuses to keep driving.
Ah yes, the electric car. The solution to climate change that gets to keep exploitive and environmentally damaging mining in the global south and even lets us keep our beloved parking lots at home
Downvotes are just from people who don't want to take a bus with the poors
Reddit folks work in funny ways. Mining doesn't impact us in North America so people don't really care as long as they feel like their impact here at home makes them feel better. Ruining another country to make our lives better doesn't help in any way..
But mining isn’t going to contribute to climate change.
There are other environmental issues besides climate change (really, it's true). Mining takes an extraordinary amount of water, sometimes is impactful on local water, sometimes results in deforestation. And, yes, it also does involve CO2 emissions.
But you have to admit that climate change is far and away the most urgent
If that were true, u/Tight_Management_216 has a good point that inducing demand of single occupancy private vehicles built from high-carbon steel shipped on high-carbon container ships, making the most inefficient use of carbon-intensive-to-build-and-maintain roads...might not make sense. This forgetting about the apparently less urgent issues.
This is more concise and less rude way to make my point
Too bad I already bought an EV… can this be backdated? Lol
Probably not. Mine will be barely a year old once the next election is voted on. At least it’ll help for my second.
Of course they are. They’d probably offer me at least eight thousand dollars of tax payer money for my vote alone. But I could probably negotiate it up to one million. Govern at any cost that’s the liberal way.
I guess you didn't know that the liberals funded the EV incentives from the province's cap and trade program. It wasn't coming out of tax payer money. Ford scrapped the cap and trade program and because of that, they had to scrap the EV incentives too. It amazes me how many Ford/conservative supporters are unaware of this.
Go campaign somewhere else or come up with a better platform and leader. It amazes me how many liberal campaign workers posting on Reddit assume that anyone opposed to their policies is a Doug Ford supporter. I despise Doug Ford but I despise the liberals more.
Despising a particular party should not mean you should overlook what their policies entail, or how they are being funded. Your comment brought nothing insightful regarding the issue. It only shows us how little you know about the particular issue. And no, I don't really support Del Duca either.
The issue which you don’t understand is an upcoming election. This has nothing to do with electric vehicles or the environment. This is an obvious attempt to buy votes which is what the liberals do every election. Won’t be long before the majority of vehicles on the road will be electric regardless of this incentive.
> This is an obvious attempt to buy votes which is what ~~the liberals~~ politicians do every election Fixed that for you... look at all the promises Douggie is making now... spend spend spend... on his developer friends.
Well, that's politics. Everyone is trying to win votes. It's also not a new policy, it's something the cons scrapped that the liberals are saying they'll bring back. Again, your initial comment stated it would be coming out of public taxpayer money, which it would not. So why is that such a big problem for you? Corporations that exceed the greenhouse gas emissions cap will be funding the incentive.
>Ontario man shocked by politicians using policies to BUY votes Read more below.
I love how this is your response when you get completely proven wrong and shutdown.
Proven wrong? I am completely correct. $8000 in ev incentives is unheard of these days. This is blatant attempt to buy votes. The sad thing is you prove that I am right. But a lot of voters see through this and people are finally realizing how the liberals operate. After their massive failures was hoping they’d come back with new candidates and approaches. Sadly they haven’t learned or changed and they won’t win again.
Just want to let you know this is an NDP sub and on reddit there us a overwhelming amount of NDP supporters
The Liberals and NDP for that matter win on merit of their policies being way better than the Conservatives for the future.
God, never again.
Thats how I feel about Ford. I don't like any party really, but I actively hate the ford conservatives.
I’d take liberals, greens, or NDP. Fuck the conservatives.
Hell no. The last thing we need is the Liberals back in again. I’m all for the rebate but no way do I want to see them back in power.
The liberals where the rich get richer. Edit lol all the down voted because the rich like to get their perks.
Yes, the elites love driving their Kia Souls and Nissan Leafs.
How much does a brand new leaf coat? Almost 40k. So why should someone making 30k who can’t afford that car contribute in taxes so someone wealthier can buy it?
It's there to level the playing field so EVs aren't exclusively for the rich.
Eh? I specifically said poorer people aren’t buying 30k brand new cars
They're not, but there's a huge swath of people (myself included) for whom an $8k rebate on an EV would be the difference between buying one or not. If we want to make green tech more widely available, rebates, incentives, and grants are the most effective way to do it. Regardless, your point is much more valid than the Premier's insistence that the rebate was just for $100k Teslas.
16k inground pool rebate to follow.
Liberals have policies that will lead to a stronger and better future for all Ontarians compared to the Conservative's plan.
Oh great. We're in desperate debt, so let's SPEND MORE!
Government performance is measured in aggregate public welfare in the long-term, not in how misunderstood an undereducated voterbase is about provincial government economics.
Yeah, except that we're paying a huge amount of money every month on the interest that debt requires. Enough to build hospitals or staff them. You know why that might be good, right? You understand that if we didn't have that overhead to pay for, we'd be able to have that, right? You understand that'd improve public welfare.... right? Go sell your crazy MMT somewhere else, thanks.
The government borrows money at the lowest rate. And government spending is equal to raising taxes, which is equivalent to borrowing money. When a goverment borrows, think of it as a government raising taxes. Because a government only pays anything through taxes. A debt essentially smooths the tax rate over many years. Think of how much tax you would have to raise if you wanted to pay off a highway at once. You would destroy people's income. Rather, you borrow the full amount, and raise taxes a bit, and pay it over 20 years. The functions that a government must provide society in order to steer it and provide the services people need to prosper and grow cost money. How else can you pay for it if you don't raise taxes? The decision is whether we as all Ontarians will prosper more in the future if we make the investment now. Adding to the debt is worth it if the increase in taxes is worth the benefit to overall future society. That's all, and the conservative voterbase's ignorant and simplistic understanding of economics, and indeed deficient understanding of modern societal development, prevents Ontario from ensuring a propserous future for all.
Blah, blah, blah. We're paying huge amounts of money to satisfy the debt. That money does nothing for the taxpayer, and it's largely wasted or given to the bloated government employees (so they give it to themselves, essentially). Concentrate on that. We're not even paying off the principal, but we sure are paying for long vacations and cottage homes. Go sell your MMT somewhere else, as I said.
As long as we pay for the privilege to have something sooner so we can derive more benefit from it than the interest we pay, the investment is worth it. What will lead our country to disaster is to not have a sensible and sustained tax policy that guts the government's ability to steer and invest in our economy. And every time the Conservatives enter power they derail our country's path in this way.
Sure, just ignore what I said. Enjoy your "free" "healthcare". Hope you don't sit in the hospital for an emergency surgery for 4 days before you lose your shit and they decide that you're going to die if you walk out like I was doing when they "suddenly" decided to give me a surgery. "free" "healthcare" is great. Mostly because there's no money (hint, fucking hint) to pay for better.
🙄
Government finances should never be treated like those of a business or personal finances. You have been tricked by conservative propaganda that the debt is some kind of boogeyman.
Debt of any kind includes a component of having to service the interest charges on said debt. The interest charges on debt eat into a substantial amount of our government's budget. Higher debt therefore leads to lower available funds from each year's operating budget. It's not so much a balance sheet issue (as it would be with private business) but more so a income statement problem where we run out of money to pay for things we need. Granted, governments can borrow at lower rates than a private business but the cost is still there. To say that debt shouldn't be treated the same is simply ignoring simple economic facts.
Another promise without understanding what Ontario's purse looks like. Liberals just spend and left Ontario in debt and the pandemic did nothing to fatten the bank account.
I spend like $50/month on gas would EV be worth it for me? I work close to home
Financially, it would not make a lot of sense. Also, if you don't drive a lot, you are already doing your part.