(Bloomberg) -- From Tesla chargers in the ancient alleys that surround the Forbidden City in Beijing to lonely highway rest stops with charging posts in the western deserts, signs of the electrification of China’s transport fleet — and the demise of gasoline — are everywhere.Most Read from BloombergIn Traffic-Weary Toronto, a Battle Breaks Out Over Bike LanesIn Italy’s Motor City, Car-Free Options Are GrowingNew York City’s ‘Living Breakwaters’ Brace for Stormier SeasNow, according to official s
  • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    3 days ago

    And here I have to pay more to register my hybrid.

    Same for my EV (double the hybrid registration cost in my state). However, that’s because of how road taxes are collected on the sale of gasoline/diesel fuel. Its still overpaying on EV taxes though. For the same registration fee I pay on an EV ($200/year) I could drive over 15,000 miles on a gasoline car getting 30 miles to the gallon. I drive maybe 11,000/year so I’m overly taxed compared to ICE drivers.

    • Zorque@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      3 days ago

      That’s the excuse they give, yes. That doesn’t mean it’s why they do it, though.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        3 days ago

        Sure, one action can have multiple reasons and outcomes. I agree with it in part that I need to pay my fair share of road taxes. I also recognize that this is a relatively new market force, and highly accurate consumption-to-taxation isn’t in place yet (again, for many reasons).

        That doesn’t mean it’s why they do it, though.

        Its not the only reason they do it.

        • Zorque@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          2 days ago

          Its not the main reason they do it.

          More money is, of course, nice for them. But that doesn’t mean it’s their main reason. We can ascribe all sorts of benevolent reasoning to politicians, but reality often disagrees.

          It’s a regressive policy made as a reaction, and not an action, and thus inherently destructive.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            2 days ago

            It’s a regressive policy

            Agreed.

            made as a reaction

            Agreed.

            and not an action,

            Err, clearly an action. A reaction IS an action by definition.

            and thus inherently destructive.

            Point of order, counselor. Conclusion not supported by the facts. If you apply your same logic ( and conclusions) to the COVID lockdowns, then your conclusion would be those were unnecessarily destructive.