Do you support the US federal E-BIKE act?

[AvalancheRun]

We subsidize EVs to the tune of $7500 each, even after many car companies have adjusted prices accordingly after a change in vehicle eligibility.

e-bikes are a far better way to reduce emissions than EVs so it's a little absurd that we don't already have a federal incentive.

If you support the E-BIKE act, please sign your name below!

REI:
"If 15% of today's carbon-emitting car trips were made by electric bicycles (e-bikes), America's carbon emissions would shrink by more than 11 percent.

That's because in addition to providing safe and convenient ways to get from place to place, battery-powered e-bikes displace carbon emissions from vehicles and lower pollution levels. E-bikes are increasingly popular for people looking to commute to work, run errands, or enjoy the outdoors without needing a car. But we need to make sure more people - of all income levels - can access and enjoy this form of low-carbon transport.

The E-BIKE (Electric Bicycle Incentive Kickstart for the Environment) Act would offer a 30 percent tax credit of up to $1500 on the purchase of new e-bikes. It's time to build support for this exciting new bill that can make climate-friendly transport more affordable for everyone."

Sign your name: https://www.rei.com/action/network/campaign/e-bike-act

 

[Gordon71]

Make it a rebate rather than a tax credit.

 

[sanyata]

We need to stop subsidizing all RPV's. Especially ones that favor the more affluent folks such as the EV tax credit.

 

[AvalancheRun]

We need to stop subsidizing all RPV's. Especially ones that favor the more affluent folks such as the EV tax credit.

As long as we subsidize driving we should push for alternatives like the bike credit.

The EV credit finally gained an income limit. It would have been far better to use all of that money for charging infrastructure though.

 

[J.R.]

It's absurd to give money back to electric car buyers, given they pay nothing towards infrastructure, which is paid by the federal gas tax. They are already getting a gas tax break.

I'd be good with a low income rebate for ebikes. Means tested, of course.

 

[PatriciaK]

It's absurd to give money back to electric car buyers, given they pay nothing towards infrastructure, which is paid by the federal gas tax. They are already getting a gas tax break.

I'd be good with a low income rebate for ebikes. Means tested, of course.

Many States are addressing the infrastructure issue by levying an extra tax in EVs to make up for them not contributing through the gas tax.

 

[scottsdalecommuter]

interesting idea, i know when i ran the numbers on getting an ebike over a car it was a no-brainer without any credits or rebates. i think the payback was less than 6 months. the biggest benefit to me more than the $ is the fresh air and mental reset. i just really don't like to drive a car.

i would obviously like to see less cars on the road but just not sure that's being realistic. i remember stopping one morning during my morning work commute on an overpass on the 101 north in Scottsdale and seeing 4-5 lanes of traffic both directions as far as i could see bumper to bumper. didn't discourage me from riding my ebike but definitely gave me some scale to the car problem.

 

[J.R.]

Many States are addressing the infrastructure issue by levying an extra tax in EVs to make up for them not contributing through the gas tax.

That might help the state coffers, but the tax credit is a federal tax credit and the gas tax that builds the most infrastructure is a federal gas tax.

 

[sanyata]

As long as we subsidize driving we should push for alternatives like the bike credit.

The EV credit finally gained an income limit. It would have been far better to use all of that money for charging infrastructure though.

Not sure how we subsidize driving being as the fuel taxes and registration costs, especially here in Calif., are so high. But I'm sure the .gov does, as you say, in some way. The EV credit income levels are ridiculously high:

• $300,000 for married couples filing jointly
• $225,000 for heads of households
• $150,000 for all other filers

Agree, stop the credits and apply it to infrastructure. The biggest downfall of the push for EV's with artificial deadlines, is the infrastructure can't support it.

 

[harryS]

Some states are offering subsidies. I don't believe the Feds should do it, so I don't support the EBike Act. I wouldn't mind if it passed, but I wouldn't need to use it, having all the bikes I want,.

 

[mschwett]

That might help the state coffers, but the tax credit is a federal tax credit and the gas tax that builds the most infrastructure is a federal gas tax.

in almost all jurisdictions, roads are funded by a mix of sources, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with the sale of gasoline. everything from sales tax increments to property taxes to general funds (income and corporate taxes) etc. the share of infrastructure spending paid for by gas taxes varies from almost nothing (new jersey - only 14%, 67% via tolls!) up to almost 100%. it’s very easy to add the estimated “revenue” from gas taxes to an EVs registration.

what is not accounted for is the trillions (yes trillions) that have been spent on foreign adventures we never would have made without the impact of oil on policy, nor the enormous health and environmental costs of pollution over the last 70 years, which are impossible to even estimate.

there are many very good reasons - from energy independence to health - to subsidize the transition to EVs.

Four million children develop asthma every year as a result of air pollution from cars and trucks, equivalent to 11,000 new cases a day, a landmark study has found. Most of the new cases occur in places where pollution levels are already below the World Health Organization limit, suggesting toxic air is even more harmful than previously thought.

The damage to children’s health is not limited to China and India, where pollution levels are particularly high. In UK and U.S. cities, the researchers blame traffic pollution for a quarter of all new childhood asthma cases.

 

[J.R.]

in almost all jurisdictions, roads are funded by a mix of sources, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with the sale of gasoline. everything from sales tax increments to property taxes to general funds (income and corporate taxes) etc. the share of infrastructure spending paid for by gas taxes varies from almost nothing (new jersey - only 14%, 67% via tolls!) up to almost 100%. it’s very easy to add the estimated “revenue” from gas taxes to an EVs registration.

what is not accounted for is the trillions (yes trillions) that have been spent on foreign adventures we never would have made without the impact of oil on policy, nor the enormous health and environmental costs of pollution over the last 70 years, which are impossible to even estimate.

there are many very good reasons - from energy independence to health - to subsidize the transition to EVs.

With the economy we have and the standard of living for many in the country in decline, I can't make any argument to give welfare to any corporation or individual that doesn't need it. People making over 150 grand, can buy a car without the help of someone making 50 grand.

As for all the other issues mentioned, I only referenced tax credits, I'm obviously pro LEV. Because someone is against wasteful spending, doesn't mean they are against EVs. Kind of a strawman argument. And yes, gas tax is not the only revenue stream for infrastructure, but gas tax is the one thing that doesn't usually get raided by politicians and it is one tax that EV buyers don't pay. They are double dipping. Someone making 35 grand a year pay gas tax and funds tax credits. Gas tax in the most regressive tax there is. It hurts lower income families the most.

 

[Chargeride]

There are some serious issues to address, in London housing developments are being held back because they cannot be supplied with the electrical capacity to feed the mandatory charging point capacity.

More and more apartments are banning them charging or even being parked in underground parking.

To turn the UK electric for all vehicles would require massive pylon installation, and funnily enough theyve just started changing the style to these 'worlds first' T pylons and actually asked us if we like them, which im pretty sure is a fallback for when they start covering the country in them.

Im always amused by claims that they will be able to control your car, well they dont have to be electric for that.
Home charge points are programmed with random start times, just to make sure everyone doesnt set them for an exact time like 7pm or when cheap tarriffs kick in , and its obviously a next step to control them completely to balance the grid ...and it will no doubt be a premium service to override that.

To context what we are up against, Oxford uni calculated to run the country completely on electricity and only use wind turbines, would require the worlds turbines offshore and every lake turned into hydro storage.
Parked hundreds of miles out..
Just for the UK ..
Probably why germany has announced another fusion investment.

Ebikes as an alternative.
It rains all the time and a lot of cheap ebikes arent even safely waterproof.
Theft is treated as a joke.
You cant insure them against theft without ten locks and an armed guard.
Companies wont let you park them inside .
The roads are like death race 2000, but with drivers scrolling phones added in.

I would love a world where everyone scooted around in those car form velomobiles.

 

[AvalancheRun]

in almost all jurisdictions, roads are funded by a mix of sources, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with the sale of gasoline. everything from sales tax increments to property taxes to general funds (income and corporate taxes) etc. the share of infrastructure spending paid for by gas taxes varies from almost nothing (new jersey - only 14%, 67% via tolls!) up to almost 100%. it’s very easy to add the estimated “revenue” from gas taxes to an EVs registration.

what is not accounted for is the trillions (yes trillions) that have been spent on foreign adventures we never would have made without the impact of oil on policy, nor the enormous health and environmental costs of pollution over the last 70 years, which are impossible to even estimate.

there are many very good reasons - from energy independence to health - to subsidize the transition to EVs.

Thanks for pointing this out. The average taxpayer subsidizes the cost of roads whether they even drive or not. Further so when we consider externalities of burning fossil fuels, space allocation to cars, etc.

The argument against subsidizing anything is fair, but we incentivize innumerable behaviors with tax credits. Until that ends I will advocate for a modest ebike incentive that reduces pollution, congestion, and improves health and community.

 

[Zekeer]

It's all a scam . C02 makes up less then 4% of our total atmosphere . If it falls below 2% . Everything including us dies . Which is the intention anyway . Zero C02 by 2030 ?? That means we are all dead . LOL Seriously it's what they have in mind

 

[AvalancheRun]

It's all a scam . C02 makes up less then 4% of our total atmosphere . If it falls below 2% . Everything including us dies . Which is the intention anyway . Zero C02 by 2030 ?? That means we are all dead . LOL Seriously it's what they have in mind

It's both surreal and tragic that humans can't accept the basic, undeniable facts of climate change that have been established by overwhelming consensus in the scientific communities, and work together towards solutions.

 

[Gordon71]

It's both surreal and tragic that humans can't accept the basic, undeniable facts of climate change that have been established by overwhelming consensus in the scientific communities, and work together towards solutions.

Like a lot of problems humans tend to deal with after it's too late.

 

[Chargeride]

It's all a scam . C02 makes up less then 4% of our total atmosphere . If it falls below 2% . Everything including us dies . Which is the intention anyway . Zero C02 by 2030 ?? That means we are all dead . LOL Seriously it's what they have in mind

Ha yes, its not a well shared fact that below 150ppm plants wont grow, we were quite close to that before we started burning fossil.
They are loving it, but it always dangerous to turn the knobs of the atmosphere.

 

[sanyata]

Given how well the various governments operate around the world, I have no doubt those vary same governments can manage the earth's climate.
SMH, that anybody thinks RPV's will have any meaningful impact.

 

[Marcela]

I saw somewhere the ships that transport 'stuff' across the oceans spew much more stuff into the atmosphere than vehicles ever will. Maybe targeting the wrong avenue.