Should the federal government support EV adoption through incentives and infrastructure funding?

No

Yes but with less focus on electric vehicles and more focus on improving affordable public transportation resources.

Government should strategically support energy innovation including EVs, but through market-driven incentives that reward results, not subsidize failures. Focus funding on infrastructure and R&D that benefits all alternative energy sources in parallel - EVs, solar, hydrogen, etc. Incentives should phase out as technologies become market-viable, preventing government dependency. Success should be measured by actual adoption rates and energy independence, not just money spent. Support innovation while eliminating waste through performance-based funding that rewards outcomes, not just participation.

I don't see a problem with it if the battery and energy transmission technology makes it feasible to replace oil based fuels.

Fine with the government giving incentives but don't believe the government should be funding electric vehicles companies. Electric vehicles ultimately aren't environmentally friendly either so I don't believe heavily funding it ultimately will make a major difference. We need to continue to get more efficient over time and move towards nuclear energy.

If EV can be proven to be as reliable as gas and largely beneficial to our environment, the government should increase certain incentives to encourage the usage of EV, however not remove any existing incentives gas vehicles provide..

No, and the federal government should support the development of public transportation, walkable cities, and national rail lines.

Until we can develop a prototype that is above a certain mileage per charge (700 or so) and a relatively environmentally friendly way to acquire the materials, no.

No, invest in public transit. EV’s are not a viable solution as they still require the burning of fossil fuels to make the electricity.

The government should support the use of public transport and micro mobility through infrastructure investment as a way to combat climate change.

Again, I think the initial focus should be on solar, wind and hybrid incentives and funding. Although EV research and infrastructure needs to be there also, just not as much initially.

Yes, but it must be implicitly made equitable. No one company should be favored in implementation. Patent holdings should be for no more than 2 years(to spur competition in manufacture and faster innovation.)

Yes, but infrastructure funding should support EV adoption into the public transportation sector (such as electric buses) rather than for private usage

No, the federal government should support improving public transportation and making trips more walkable

Yes, but EVs should be rolled out as part of expanding public transportation (such as electric buses) and not funded solely for private usage

No since the production of electric cars is just as carbon emitting as well as people with pacemakers cannot drive them.

Yes, the federal government should support EV adoption through incentives and infrastructure funding, as this can drive down costs, encourage broader adoption, and contribute to a cleaner transportation sector.
Here's a more detailed look at the arguments for and against federal support for EVs:
Arguments for Federal Support:
Environmental Benefits:
EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, contributing to cleaner air and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, which is crucial for addressing climate change.
Economic Benefits:
The shift to electric transportation can create new jobs in the EV man…  Read moreufacturing and charging infrastructure sectors, and reduce long-term costs for consumers through lower fuel and maintenance expenses.
Energy Security:
Reducing reliance on fossil fuels for transportation enhances energy security and reduces vulnerability to price fluctuations and geopolitical instability.
Technological Advancement:
Federal support can incentivize innovation and investment in battery technology, charging infrastructure, and other EV-related technologies, leading to faster development and wider adoption.
Infrastructure Development:
Investing in EV charging infrastructure, especially in rural and underserved areas, is essential for making EVs accessible to all and overcoming a major barrier to adoption.
Tax Credits and Rebates:
Tax credits and rebates can help make EVs more affordable for consumers, particularly those with lower incomes, and encourage wider adoption.
Global Competitiveness:
Investing in the EV industry can help the U.S. maintain its competitiveness in the global automotive market and attract investment in clean energy technologies.
Federal Legislation:
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act provide significant funding for EV infrastructure and manufacturing, demonstrating a commitment to supporting the EV transition.
Arguments Against Federal Support:
Cost to Taxpayers:
Federal subsidies and incentives for EVs can be costly to taxpayers, and some

Yes, so long as the government invests in incentives for multiple smaller companies and not just the wealthy corporations. That way it encourages market competition and innovation in the space, while also allowing the smaller EV companies to recieve tax credits that large corporations are often given disproportionately and exclusively, as well as contribute toward reducing carbon emissions and a cleaner environment.

Yes, but we must also support workers and businesses who may be hurt by the expansion of EV manufacturing

No, the government should discourage individual car ownership and promote public and alternative modes of transportation

Yes, but also provide support for public transportation and other alternatives to private automobiles.

No electric vehicles are no better for the environment because of the manufacture of the vehicles and the parts of the vehicles and the electricity the vehicles consume the government should fund research of hydrogen flue cell vehicles

while EV can be a great option we should still be supporting and working on putting better public transport into place

Every car, gas or electric, should have incentives, better infrastructure available to support them, and be more affordable and reliable.

No focus on public transportation instead; but offer some incentives for hybrid and electric vehicles.

you NEED TO DIVERSIFY! yes ev is our best CURRENT situation, but you need to earmark dollars for other fuels besides just ev. this year alone there have been no less than 4 new fuel in stage 3 developement. in ohio we have a robust hydrogen research program and fuel cells almost ready for market

Yes but only if we find a more ethical and eco friendly way to acquire the materials necessary to construct EVs and so long as the infrastructure to support them is sustainable and run on renewable energy

it should fund the integration of both electric fuel and Gas vehicles as they both have equal pros and cons.

Yes, only if we upgrade the power grid to handle the energy outputs needed to service millions of EVs

Yes, but only through incentives. It is up to the private companies to make their own infrastructure for their EVs but hold them to other environmental standards

No, only use incentives to allow low income individuals to purchase electric vehicles if they choose to but can not afford.

No, it shouldnt be involved with the government but should be supported if it shows its helping with climate change.

I don't like the incentives part but do believe in supporting the growth of more EV's and the infrastructure for them

No, allow it to be more privatized for the sake of capitalism, weak government, low taxes, and low national debt.

No, for the sake of capitalism, weak government, checks and balances, federalism, low taxes, and a low national debt.

Yes, the federal government should support DV adoption through incentives and infrastructure funding because if it helps the environment in any way then do it especially with how some ecosystems in the environment are really staring to struggle to thrive with the climate change.

EV should be optional with the benefit of government funding and price reduction of electric vehicles

Yes but it is unfair to make taxpayers foot he bill so it shouldn't happen unless it won't effect the taxpayers negatively

No, because this is socialist spending and we need to stop the reckless spending, lower taxes for everyone regardless of class, and deflate the national debt

Similar to the question wind power subsidies, EV subsidies and infrastructure subsidies should be tied to benchmarks to ensure the government isn't support failing projects. Benchmarks could include scaling manufacturing, reducing EV costs, increasing sales, etc

I believe the steps and process of making EV's are just as bad and damaging as gasoline and diesel and a different method is needed.

No, the government should support infrastructure initiatives that reduce our dependence on cars altogether.

The government should support public transportation and pedestrian areas, not vehicles regardless of their impact on the environment.

We should incentivize public transportation and eliminate the use of private vehicles as much as possible if we really want to do something for the environment.

Yes, this includes an electricity grid acquired with more environmentally friendly means, such as nuclear and hydropower.

Yes, but not through any methods that would give preferential treatment to any one EV manufacturer over another.

I feel as it would help the environment to fund ev but to the point to just take money from the poor is absolutely cruel.

Yes, so long as it doesn’t undermine global competitive advantage and hinder critical economic activity

I think the US should shift towards hydrogen because the raw materials for EV's often come slave/child labor.

No, Find ways to cut down on fossil fuels that are used at a higher scale such as factories and in power grids

Yes, but the government should not provide funding for infrastructure, only provide incentives that cost no money.

No, the focus should be on promoting "hybrid" vehicles until the long-term negative impacts of battery disposal are addressed as well as the safety concerns with EV vehicles weight, center of gravity and existing safety infrastructure (like guardrails) being insufficient to protect EV occupants.

The government shouldn't support EV adoption and should instead work on funding public transportation instead of attempting to save the auto industry.

Yes but make sure the origin of the electricity is from environmentally sustainable sources and not from fossil fuels

No, but the government can fund the improvement of EVs. Then, we can adopt them through incentives from the government.

No, the process of building electric vehicles is just as harmful, if not more harmful than gas or diesel.

The government should help fund or encourage the private sector to create infrastructure like charging stations but that's it.

The government should be encouring people to live car free and advocate to make that easier to achieve.

not until there is viable competition, i dont want a facist owning a monopoly on space and renewable transportation

Fine with the government gives incentives but don't believe the government should be funding electric vehicles companies. Electric vehicles ultimately aren't environmentally friendly either so I don't believe heavily funding it ultimately will make a major difference. We need to continue to get more efficient over time and move towards nuclear energy.

Assuming there is a means to make EVs that is ecologically acceptable and involves humane treatment of employees.

Maybe, or make public transportation a mandatory for the sake of our planet, help us get that transportation

I am indifferent to this, however, people driving more electric cars would very marginally decrease the production of greenhouse gases.

There needs to be more incentives while the auto-industry is so dominant in nationwide infrastructure but we need to revitalize alternatives such as buses, micro-mobility, and rail alongside the transition to EV.

Let EV companies compete for business and not use tax dollars thus useing the money of private businesses and not tax payers

I believe it would be much more beneficial to use funding to build forms of transport that don't require cars. Such as Trains etc.

Situational depending on what kind of battery would be used for EV. Lithium? No. If a less environment harmful battery is used, then yes.

Yes, but let the private sector develop the infrastructure to promote competition and better networks.

In order for EVs to be used by everyone, there definitely needs to be incentives but the electrical grid of the country needs to be upgraded

The government should support EV adoption if the electricity to charge the EVs can be produced in a way that doesn't harm the environment/atmosphere.

The government should not give direct subsidies. It should use economic leavers to internalize externalities. This should be done with pigouvian taxes and the creation of market-based regulations that minimally or at least very indirectly influence the market for EVs.

I believe The government should help people make the right choice for the individual. What works for some might not work for others.

Yes, but only after we have a green electrical grid; increasing electric vehicle use will only increase demand for fossil fuel energy.

i believe that adopting ev cars are a good thing but I believe that going all in and removing gas and diesel vehicles is a bad idea but instead adding onto companies with ev cars.

The government should focus on high speed rail infrastructure instead of the car depended dystopia we currently live in

I believe that although gas does have a large effect on global warming electric cars are not the best choice. Electric cars are hard to own EVERYWHERE because some people closes charger is 30 plus minutes from there home. This can leave people stranded on roads without a functioning car. When electric cars are being charged they charge much slower when the battery gets cold. Until people can correct such things I don't think that everyone should be restricted to electric cars.

Yes, there should be at least one EV charging station at every gas station in America and all cars made after 2026 should be hybrids and a serious effort should be made to transition from hybrids to full EVs by 2040.

No, electric vehicles do more damage to the ecosystem them gas does. When they get the resources for EV the area becomes dead while Gas areas are full of life.

Yes they should but to not go crazy with the infrastructure funding. Mass building charging centers every can sort of counter what EVs are created for

No, this will raise taxes and raise the national debt. This also impedes capitalism, checks and balances, weak government, and federalism.