Yes, but only if it includes subsidies for low-income citizens to afford these vehicles

The government shouldn't be subsidizing manufacturers vehicles. That's up to a manufacturer to incentive purchasing.

Gas based cars do not cause as much polloution as people have come to believe and create a bad idea of people beliveing they are helping while costing them alot more money

There should be no government mandate in general. I will drive whatever I please, whenever I please, wherever I please. I have the right to buy whatever I want, it is my money.

if thats all they can afford buy it but with all the poor people in the world thereed be alot of electric vehicles

I feel like if we can mass produce electric vehichles and they are easy to maintain then they should be cheaper for the lower class to afford or for a nice first car in a middle/upper class family.

Even with subsidies, low-income households may still face high costs for maintenance, insurance, and charging infrastructure for EVs. Subsidies often only cover the purchase price, leaving ongoing expenses a barrier. Additionally, funding these subsidies could strain government budgets or divert resources from other essential programs, making the policy less sustainable than gradually improving affordability through market competition and technological innovation.

I would say that Electric Vehicle are innofficent and it wouldn't.t be beneficial no matter the accomindations that come with it.

People should have the right of choose what hey wanna drive and not be forced by the law to choose something that for some is important which is the engines, the sounds and everything else a normal car gives you, but the electric don't

A strong counter-argument to the position that EV mandates should include subsidies for low-income citizens is that such subsidies often fail to effectively achieve their intended goals, can be regressive, and may create market distortions.

I don't think that there should be any sort of mandates on the kind of vehicles people are allowed to use.

instead of paying for people to drive cars that will harm the environment regardless of being electric or not we should spend that money on public transit which will still harm the enivorment but way less than electric cars

There are not enough mechanics who can work on these anyways. People who don't have the money for this already don't have the means to fix them either. EV mandates are outrageous and ridiculous and is unreasonable for most Americans

No one should be forced to drive a car they do not want to, hybrids are a good alternative. Incentives to drive an EV would help.

All new cars should not be required to be hybrid or electric, it would be expensive for low income people. And environmentally toxic to mass produce these.

Electric vehicles are inherently problematic for Americans who rent, who also happen to be disproportionately low-income. Even if in the future apartments include charging at every parking space, the parking spaces are not enclosed, so prankster could go around unplugging people's vehicles. Electric vehicles will only ever work for homeowners, and should not be treated as a future solution to replace all internal combustion engine vehicles. If the government wants to replace all ICE vehicles, it should do so with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

there shouldn't be taxes on gas vehicles because there bad for the environment because electric cars are just as bad.

low income citizens should utilize public transport if owning a car becomes too expensive. take a train or ride a bike. its better for the environment.

it would probably cost too much to get things repaired for that vehicle, unless they were to lower the costs of repairs on those electric vehicles.

I don't think that electric vehicles should be enforced , if the family wants them yes, but will the government provide the funding to them for the repairs in the future

Mandated electric vehicles take away the choice of the consumer which promotes monopolies on green/electric car companies.

We need them for business and this is unrealistic, only;y certain people would get vehicles. They help our nation in every way.

While giving the subsides for low-income citizens, the idea for major creation of EV's is for greener use of energy or fuel. With my last two responses the idea is only straining but almost unnecessary.

This still takes away choice and propels monopolies into power instead of companies being on the same ground.

I do not believe in electric vehicles replacing the gas vehicle but the production of electric vehicles shouldn't be affordable to poor citizens. this just means the quality can be lower and defeat the purpose of a electric vehicle

People think electric cars are healthier for the environment than gas, but I believe that isn't true.

electric vehicles do not matter, they should be taken off the market, no one needs to be buying them, therefore they do not need to lower prices for the poor to afford them.

Electric vehicles do no make a significant impact on the environment, if anything it makes a harsher impart due to the lithium mines emissions.

electric vehicles do not matter, they should be taken off the market, no one needs to be buying them, therefore they do not need to lower prices for the poor to afford them.

The government should build a good public transport system so that they don;t have to rely on their own vehicles.

People should be incentivized to purchase electric vehicles if they choose to but electric cars are not cleaner for the environment thus far so there is no point in mandating them.

Focusing on subsidies for lower income citizens to afford electric vehicles is not productive enough and I don’t think it is smart to have electric vehicle mandates to solely reduce emissions when there are other ways we can protect the environment without drastic changes like this that will only hurt our pockets.

no we shouldn't do to the fact we shouldn't use less wealthy people to force electric cars on everyone

people should be able to have whatever car they want because of freedom of expression and cars can be a way people express themselves

If someone doesn't have the money to buy an EV, then why make them go into debt, or just let the government pay for them and the issue is solved.

Companies aren’t making EVs that are affordable with or without the subsidies for average Americans. There’s no incentive for that to change, and they shouldn’t continue being rewarded with subsidies for cars that only higher tax brackets can afford.

I do not trust the reliability of electric vehicles and the charging time can be extremely consuming which can delay people from work or more important matters.

No, because you can spend your money on affordable gas cars or electric. Honestly its up to you and your money. We shouldn't have to pay for other people to have cars they didn't work for.

if thats all they can afford buy it but with all the poor people in the world thereed be alot of electric vehicles

lower income people right now could go to a dealership and buy a used car for cheap and be able to use that car for a long time although electric car. Don’t last even half as long as most gas vehicles can.

I want a real car. Cars with engine have a soul. The V8 engine is a great symbol of the Red, White, and Blue.

I think that the lower income citizens need to figure it out partially on their own because most of the time they put themselves in such a position and are now relying on society to dig them out when it was there own wrong doing that put them there.

A strong counterargument to supporting electric vehicle mandates only with subsidies for low-income citizens could emphasize the broader economic and environmental implications of focusing solely on subsidies.

Subsidies for low-income people might seem good, but they can cost taxpayers a lot of money. Also, electric vehicles still aren't perfect for everyone. Some people live in places where charging stations are far away, and others may not have jobs that need an electric car. Instead of forcing everyone to switch, we could focus on making electric cars cheaper for everyone, so no one feels left out.

They ultimately spend the same in utility because ion batteries are expensive to charge that they would have spent on fuel.

where do we determine low income citizens some of these low income house holds are using there money the wrong way and not focusing on their future

They ultimately spend the same in utility because ion batteries are expensive to charge that they would have spent on fuel.

Subsidies cause economic refraction and makes it harder to examine weather or not a policy is effective. Also the cost for those subsidies will be put onto tax payers.

Even with the subsidies there would be additional cost for charging stations that may not be financial appropriate for those with a lower income.

If the government would like to offer assistance to low income citizens, they shouldn't require that they purchase a certain type of car.

another thing is that electric cars are expensive to make and they also explode no matter what if you have an empty take of gas whats going to explode

No, I don't think that electric vehicles would be mandated because they aren't beneficial for our environment.

That would be a huge waste of money that could be used for actual good or even creating a cheaper alternative for sustainable fuel.

Some people they all vehicles need to be electric but i don't think because we need vehicles to tow and pull things.

Still, I don't think electric cars should be a thing, even though there wouldn't be that many it still would add up.

If electric vehicles do become mandatory, then yes the government should help pay for the vehicles of the poorer class. But there still highly expensive and without help many will be left without any transport to jobs , kids, and family.

1. I do not believe EVs are reliable or even safer for the ecosystem. The cost of producing all the plastic and batteries may even result in more environmental problems in the future. Also, the government should not tell you what car to buy, not only would it damage the industry and economy, but also take away from our liberty.

2. I do not believe that handouts/subsidies should exist. In America, there are countless opportunities to become more than who you are, you just have to put in the effort. There is no argument to this: effort, intelligence, hard-work, dedication, and a little luck will…  Read more always equate in success. There has not been a single time that someone who has all these factors becomes broke, and frankly, if you are unable to show an ounce of these qualities, America is not for you and you are giving nothing to have teh government do anything for you.

There is no need for electric cars. We need to find a better solution for a low-emission car. We need to invest more in to hydrogen power.

What if the government only makes the initial cost affordable? they have to pay for the energy that they use.

There is no reason to spend money to allow low-income citizens to afford these vehicles when they aren't necessary. I think the money could be used to find other ways of improving the climate besides forcing the production of electric vehicles.

government shouldn't be allowed to mandate what we drive and it doesn't have a significant impact anyway

No because gas vehicles should stay and remove electric cars because electric cars are worse for the economy

Some are stubborn. Mandating it is unnecessary, but it should be promoted as a preferable choice, not the sole option.

I believe the should stay away from electric and stay with fuel that way we can continue to do things that we do now.

I don't think we should be running on electric vehicles because for starters not everybody can afford it. They also don't have charging stations in every city or town people pass through which makes your driving experience scary due to the people who made electronic cars careless thoughts of people with different life styles if that's poorer, out of the way, or just not into electric cars in general. There's so many reasons that having everybody use electric cars can put our country at risk.

I still don't agree with it because there is a lot of people who are into older vehicles and electric vehicles are much harder and more expensive to maintain as well as produce, in reality the emissions put out to produce the electric cars outweighs the emissions they take away.

Electric vehicle mandates would not work, just like if they tried to ban all guns. If someone cant afford a electric vehicle then they should not be absolutley forced to have one.

Electric cars are just as dangerous if not more then gas powered vehicles because the lithium battery, now that doesn't go without saying that the gas cars emit carbon monoxide but electric cars aren't fully solar powered so they also use gases to make electricity in giant electric plants, so they are just as bad.

I absolutely hate electric cars because the gas powered engines have the unique noise and if they aren't loud, kids in the street might not know they are coming.

I think that if you are working and taking your job seriously, there should be no reason you can't support yourself and that the government shouldn't have a foothold in buying people cars.

While giving the subsides for low-income citizens, the idea for major creation of EV's is for greener use of energy or fuel. With my last two responses the idea is only straining but almost unnecessary.

So the people with lower income don't have to worry about gas prices and have more money to spend on more important things

even if only few people have these electric cars like the wealthy that doesn't change the carbon emission

wouldn't make sense to do that if we are going to spend thousands of dollars on Eletric vehicles yes some might need them but might as well use the money on something else

and how long is that gonna take due to electric cars being new means there gonna be expensive but even so how many years is the price gonna go down and even if it did it called low-income for a reason.

Electric cars don't work, battery life is significantly worse if you reside in a cold area due to the cold draining the life out of the battery.

These vehicles would not be affordable for low income citizens because it costs a lot more to keep them going

That's a whole other issue. Yes, a mandate would adversely impact low-income as well as middle-class homes given how expensive these vehicles cost. The answer isn't just subsidies but also rebates back to manufactures to lower prices. There is also the secondary consideration on the short/mid-term impact on the used car market, convenience stores, ability to travel distances in vehicles and that impact on the travel/leisure industry.

Electric Vehicles are dangerous and have a high cost while when failing being very expensive to repair. Low income citizens should stick to cheaper ore reliable options.

you will spend more whith eltric cause that means more chargers more power bills raise and also power bill on your house will go up because your charging a car

we still should not be forced into electric vehicles because they are not that much more efficient and are less reliable

While supporting EV mandates and aiming for equity through subsidies is commendable, a counter-argument is that subsidies can be inefficient and create unintended consequences, potentially hindering broader EV adoption and environmental goals.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Subsidies can be expensive and create a dependency:
Subsidies, while intended to make EVs more accessible, can be costly to taxpayers and might lead to a dependency on government support, potentially slowing down long-term, sustainable solutions.
Subsidies might not reach the intended recipients:
Subsidies,…  Read more especially if not designed carefully, could disproportionately benefit higher-income individuals who can afford EVs anyway, rather than reaching low-income consumers who need them most.
Focusing on subsidies might overshadow other important solutions:
Instead of solely relying on subsidies, policymakers could focus on building robust public transportation infrastructure, promoting carpooling, and incentivizing the use of electric vehicles for specific purposes (e.g., ride-sharing, delivery services).
Subsidies could distort the market:
Overly generous subsidies might lead to an artificial demand for EVs, potentially straining the production of batteries and other critical components, and leading to higher costs in the long run.
Infrastructure challenges:
Even with subsidies, widespread EV adoption requires a robust charging infrastructure, which might be more expensive to build than other transportation solutions.
Environmental impact beyond emissions:
The production and disposal of EV batteries require rare earth minerals, which can lead to environmental pollution and ethical concerns.

I think either way we should keep the ability to use gas and diesel vehicles, that's not something the government should be allowed to control

If we mandate Citizens to throw away their old cars for electric ones, there would be a massive surge of waste related to these cars. Sure, Recycling exists, but it would be a huge effort just to recycle these. Plus, there would have to be a sudden surge in production of these vehicles, hundreds of millions of vehicles in fact. Not only that, but I'm not sure our power grid could sustain that many Electric Vehicles hitting our power grids. Along with this comes the reality that building these vehicles would take a lot of Lithium Batteries, and you would have to have the supply in order…  Read more to build them. The technology to recycle Lithium Ion batteries is getting there, but not quite there yet, meaning those batteries are unrecyclable. With that comes the reality that getting that much Lithium supply would be nigh impossible, if we even have enough in the world for EVERYONE to be driving electric vehicles. Apart from Logistical Reasons for daily drivers, the government doesn't really have the right to take away our choice of what vehicle we buy. Millions of people drive combustion engine vehicles for fun, myself included, and if you remove that from us, you are removing something from our lives that has always existed. The Government doesn't have the right to take that away from you, just like they don't have the right to take your house away from you. Electric cars aren't the same as gas vehicles, and they are irreplacable in many peoples hearts.

We live in a time where electric vehicles are not perfected yet, They have plenty of flaws with battery holding, issues with batteries being affected by climate and much more too. Majority of the population depends on their gas powered cars and clearly has survived with them with close to a century. I think Electric Vehicles should not be mandated anywhere in the near future.

A strong counter-argument to the "EV mandates only if with subsidies" position is to emphasize the broader societal benefits of transitioning to electric vehicles, arguing that subsidies should be targeted to support infrastructure and charging access for all, not just low-income individuals. This approach ensures a more equitable and sustainable transition, benefitting all citizens and the environment.
Here's a more detailed elaboration:
Broader Benefits:
EVs reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and reliance on fossil fuels, benefiting everyone, regardless of incom…  Read moree. Universal infrastructure upgrades, like charging stations, are crucial for widespread adoption.
Equity through Universal Access:
Instead of solely focusing on subsidies, prioritize building accessible charging infrastructure in low-income areas and ensuring affordable electricity rates. This ensures that everyone has access to the benefits of EVs.
Promoting Green Jobs:
Expanding the EV sector, including manufacturing, charging infrastructure, and maintenance, can create numerous well-paying green jobs across the economy, benefiting all income levels.
Addressing Infrastructure Needs:
The current charging infrastructure is inadequate, hindering EV adoption. A robust infrastructure plan, funded by a combination of public and private investment, is crucial.
Reduced long term costs for all:
The cost of charging an EV can be lower than gasoline, even for higher income individuals, and EVs often require less maintenance, reducing long term costs for everyone.
By focusing on a holistic approach of infrastructure and charging access, we can promote EV adoption equitably while maximizing the benefits for all, and not just low income individuals.

I disagree with this because low-income citizens should not have electric vehicles as they are expensive.

Subsidies often incentivize companies to increase their prices to whatever the subsidy will cover. Many, many colleges in America raise their tuition prices to match that of the federally maximum covered student loan, even if that price is not necessary for their operation. I do not think government subsidies is a good long term approach to almost anything. The government should not subsidize capitalism, in general, it should either own it or be detached from it entirely.

Electric vehicles should not be mandated to use because a lot of people cannot afford to buy and maintain an electric car. On the other hand, gas cars can be much cheaper and also last much longer over time if taken proper care of.

I believe that with the unreliability of electric vehicles it is not a good idea to give them to low income people.

most companies would probably try to make their way around this rule because they always want more money.