It's telling that none of the EV advocates have raised a single argument, fact or figure to attempt to answer my points.
Hmmm, OK, on this point:
But until then, I disagree with my tax $$ being spent to make your EV cheaper
It would be YOUR tax dollars making YOUR EV cheaper.
Don't forget, your tax dollars were your wage dollars before they were IRD's tax dollars. Wouldn't you like to be able to spend some more of YOUR money on YOUR car?
In the past we (NZ) spend YOUR (well, your grand-dad's) tax dollars building dams, the national grid, the national highway system, the railways, ports and telephone systems, and I think we're all better for it.
So, convince me the numbers stack up
I have no problem with paying taxes and that money being spent by the govt (partly because I'm a government servant).
But if we have $$ to spend on CC, are we better trying to reduce it or mitigate its effects?
And if it's the former, is the subsidy of EVs the best, or even a good way to spend the money? How about a scrappage scheme for old, thirsty cars - how would that stack up against EVs? Or electrifying the Northern busway? Or "virtual trams"? Or subsidising house insulation?
Yes, EVs are neat technology and I will probably buy one as a 2nd/3rd car in the next 3-4 years. But I don't expect taxpayers, most of whom have less disposable cash than me, to subsidise this choice unless it can be shown that it is the best bang for $ in terms of CC expenditure
Are you a cost accountant or something? Can't you see beyond pure monetary issues? Don't you believe that the Earth's 6th mass extinction, as discussed in the above article, is actually taking place now?
Look, if Earth has had 5 mass extinctions from "natural" events, then can't you see that human activity is a prime cause of a likely 6th mass extinction and that subsidising EVs is a step in the right direction to perhaps slow it down?