@ISIDEWITHQuestionsenvironment2yrs ago

Should the government build a network of electric vehicle charging stations?

In 2022 the European Union, Canada, the U.K. and the U.S. state of California approved regulations banning the sale of new gasoline-powered cars and trucks by 2035. Plug-in hybrids, full electrics and hydrogen cell vehicles would all count toward the zero-emission targets, though auto makers will only be able to use plug-in hybrids to meet 20% of the overall requirement. The regulation will impact only new-vehicle sales and affects only manufacturers, not dealerships. Traditional internal-combustion vehicles will still be legal to own and drive after 2035, and new models can still be sold until 2035. Volkswagen and Toyota have said they aim to sell only zero-emission cars in Europe by that time.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  Left

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 325 Left voters.

85%
Yes
15%
No
77%
Yes
7%
No
8%
Yes, but only if they use renewable energy sources
5%
No, and we should be focusing more on improving public transportation
2%
No, and I am skeptical about the viability of electric vehicles
1%
No, provide subsidies to private companies that compete to build the best network instead

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 325 Left voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 325 Left voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Left voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9CPWY3Rfrom Washington  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but should be focusing more on improving public transportation

 @99RBH7Sanswered…2yrs2Y

isn't really that big of a deal right now as the number od e-vehicles is insanely low for the government to engage in making e-pumps everywhere...until we have a certain % of e-vehicles running around the customers should be responsible for their own charging

 @99L6NSWanswered…2yrs2Y

Not until there are enough lithium ion battery recycling plants and enough green energy generation.

 @99CC9XNanswered…2yrs2Y

Invest more in Public Transit instead.

 @99BZHJFanswered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but the ownership of these stations should be sold, to protect them from vandalism.

 @9987HWCanswered…2yrs2Y

Yes, through a public-private partnership

 @997LKGRanswered…2yrs2Y

No, the government must first focus on improving local public transport to reduce the need to own individual vehicals

 @997C3GTanswered…2yrs2Y

I do not have an education in the subject matter.

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Electric Vehicle Charging Stations” news articles, updated frequently.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…11mos11MO

California Sets A Nationwide Electric Vehicle Mandate

Where are the antitrust cops when you need them? Stellantis and California this week struck a deal to protect the state’s electric-vehicle mandate from future political and legal challenges. Here’s another illustration of collusion between big government and big business that hurts Americans.The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has banned the sale of new gas-powered cars in the state by 2035. Unlike Biden Administration officials, progressives in Sacramento are honest about their plan to phase-out gas-powered cars. EV sales will have to ramp up fast over the next decade, making up 51% of sales by 2028 and 100% by 2035.A Clean Air Act waiver from the Biden Environmental Protection Agency lets California impose its own greenhouse-gas emissions standards and other states to follow them. While California is waiting on the EPA to extend its waiver through 2035, its EV mandate is already creating headaches for car companies.Auto makers essentially hedged their regulatory risk, knowing Mr. Trump could lose re-election or that his Administration could lose its legal battle with California. Their hedge paid off when Mr. Biden won and restored California’s waiver. Other auto makers that didn’t cut deals with California now operate at a regulatory disadvantage.In any case, the biggest losers of this “partnership” with California will be Americans across the country who will have fewer gas-powered options. California is imposing its EV mandate nationwide by using regulation to take auto makers hostage. Mr. Newsom may not be running for President in November, but he already acts as if he governs the country.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…10mos10MO

Political Divisions Damage U.S. Auto Industry

The U.S. auto industry needs regulatory certainty from politicians in Washington and the back and forth as the White House changes hands doesn't help, but the adoption rate of electric vehicles will continue to grow, Ford Motor's (F.N), opens new tab executive chairman Bill Ford said on Wednesday.The CEO of Ford said when he talks with politicians in Washington, he gets very different viewpoints from the two parties.He said Republicans question the need for EVs, saying the U.S. sector trails China and they don't want to use Chinese technology. Meanwhile, Democrats are pushing the industry to make more EVs and asking what they can do to accelerate the process.The Biden administration last month handed Detroit automakers a major win by easing proposed rules that would have forced them to scale back production of gas-guzzling vehicles or face billions of dollars in fines.Bill Ford said the transition to EVs will be gradual and determined by consumers. "We're not shoving anything down anybody's throat," he said.The growth rate on EV sales has slowed, but globally they are being adopted quickly and Ford will follow even as it hedges it bets with its gasoline-powered and hybrid electric vehicles, he said at a Detroit Free Press event outside Detroit.While not commenting on the race between U.S. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, and former president Donald Trump, a Republican, Bill Ford said he wishes the country would pick a path so the industry can plan better."Our planning timeframe is a lot longer than election cycles," he said."We can do almost anything as a company, and frankly as an industry, as long as we have some certainty towards where we're headed," Bill Ford added. "The problem is when we're whipsawed back and forth by politicians. We can't turn on a dime. Just pick a path and we'll go for it."Michigan is a key battleground state in the election this fall and both Biden and Trump have been speaking to voters, including many industry workers, about the challenges the U.S. auto sector faces. Trump has charged that Biden’s policies will kill auto jobs and aid China’s surging EV industry.Ford Motor on Tuesday resumed shipments of its F-150 Lightning electric pickup after an undisclosed quality issue led to a nine-week halt starting in February.Earlier this month, Ford cut prices of some Lightning variants by as much as $5,500, and it previously cut prices on its Mustang Mach-E electric SUV by up to $8,100 after sales fell.Also this month, Ford delayed the planned launches of three-row EVs in Canada and next-generation electric pickup truck built planned for production in Tennessee.Ford CEO Jim Farley has said the U.S. automaker was committed to scaling up its EV business profitably. It lost nearly $4.7 billion on its EV business in 2023 and projected it will lose $5 billion to $5.5 billion this year.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2wks2W

Jon Stewart Begs Democrats To ‘Please Stop Trotting Out Chuck Schumer!'

Jon Stewart criticized Democrats for repeatedly using Chuck Schumer as their spokesperson against Trump, calling his performances ineffective and monotonous.Stewart mocked Schumer's response to Trump's trade war threats, particularly his simplistic explanation about Mexican imports like Corona beer and avocados.The former Daily Show host expressed frustration at Schumer's basic observation that "guacamole is made of avocados" as a response to complex trade policy issues.Stewart sarcastically highlighted the Democrats' poor strategic choice in selecting Schumer to counter Trump, whom he described as "one of the most savvy presidential media manipulators in history."The comedian ridiculed Schumer's appearance and presentation style, particularly mocking his use of reading glasses positioned low on his nose.Stewart's criticism centered on the Democratic leadership's judgment in repeatedly choosing an "uninteresting" and "monotone" spokesperson.The commentary addressed Trump's threats of tariffs against Canada and Mexico, though focused more on the Democratic response than the policy itself.Stewart used hyperbole to emphasize his point, stating that Schumer's speaking makes him "want to bomb Canada."The piece highlighted the perceived disconnect between Democratic messaging strategy and effective opposition to Trump's policies.Stewart's criticism suggested a broader frustration with Democratic leadership's media strategy and public presentation.

▲  4817 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1wk1W

Gavin Newsom Defends Immigrants With $25 Million

Governor Newsom signed legislation allocating $50 million total to protect California's policies from Trump administration challenges and defend immigrants facing deportation, split evenly between the state's DOJ and legal defense groups.The funding comes as California anticipates renewed conflicts with Trump's administration, following over 100 legal actions against his first term policies on issues including climate, water, and immigration.Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas justified the funding by characterizing the Trump administration as "out-of-control" and threatening to Californians' constitutional rights.The signing occurred just after Newsom's Washington visit to secure federal disaster aid for January's devastating Los Angeles wildfires, which claimed more than two dozen lives.California recently enacted a separate $2.5 billion fire relief package, with expectations of federal reimbursement for disaster response costs.Republican lawmakers criticized the legal defense funding as a political distraction from wildfire recovery efforts, with State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calling it a "slush fund."Critics raised concerns about the possibility of funds being used to defend immigrants with serious felony convictions, though Newsom indicated this wasn't the intended purpose.The legislation emerged from a special session Newsom called shortly after Trump's election in November, demonstrating California's proactive stance against anticipated federal challenges.During Trump's first term, California initiated more than 120 lawsuits against his administration, spending approximately $42 million on legal battles.Annual legal expenses fighting federal policies during Trump's first term ranged from $2 million to nearly $13 million per year.

▲  1120 replies