• DessalinesOPA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

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

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 month ago

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

    • nahuse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

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

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

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

      • DessalinesOPA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          • o_d [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

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

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

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

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

    • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      1 month ago

      They’re oversaturating the market with low-quality products. This can be a significant problem when there are safety implications.

      • joneskind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’m sorry but this argument doesn’t make sense. Don’t you have safety rules in the US? If the Chinese cars aren’t safe to drive nobody should be authorized to drive them in the first place. If they are safe, no need for tariffs then.

        This decision has absolutely nothing to do with alleged poor manufacturing quality. It’s protectionism, pure and simple.

      • prashanthvsdvn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Why can’t they just certify cars based on safety and ban unsafe ones instead of blanket ban the entire segment of them. It certainly helps the adoption of EV among masses.

        • davelA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 month ago

          This is what the NHTSA has done since its formation in 1970.

      • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        The Chinese cars are probably much safer on the road then the huge pedestrian killing machines built by US manufacturers.