I think incentivising an ICE vehicle sends the wrong message and also ultimately doesn't make a difference. Someone comparing an ICE vehicle out of the subsidy band vs one that is will be unlikely to be swayed to the subsidised ICE because it's in a completely different category to the vehicle they're considering. Anything in the ICE subsidy band is going to be low performing and likely small. Basically, what I'm saying is I don't see the subsidy on ICE vehicles attracting new buyers of that vehicle class - you're just making it cheaper for someone that was already going to buy it.
EVs on the other hand are attractive as an option to nearly all ICE buyers because they work differently and out perform the ICE vehicles in their class. Driving them has negligible impact on the environment and they're quite a lot cheaper to run. The only stopping point with them at the moment is their price difference. By further reducing the price of an ICE vehicle over the EV option you're potentially making people pick that ICE vehicle over the EV when they might have gone with the EV.
Wrong message? It sends the message to reduce emissions.
Who said its about bringing out of the subsidy band ICE into the subsidy band? No one.
The subsidy will be small but so is the price. Its far more likely to bring in a new buyer that would be a buyer of a pre owned vehicle. Your 8k subsidy went bring in any new buyers
Yes YIU ARE MAKING IT CHEAPER FOR SOMEONE WHO WAS ALREADY GLING TO BUY IT. Im glad you have now seen the light.
What I bolded, what a crock! The difference between a subsidised ICE and a subsidies EV is night and day price wise. Night and day.
Conclusion is that I favour attempt to reduce emissions, you do not. You favour a subsidy on cars that the buyers will buy anyway.Im disappointed that a move that will reduce emissions and has no bearing on EV purchases as the price difference is night and day is not supported. That says it all and whoever said recently, EV evangelists was correct. The rest of us, most of which are also keen on EV's are climate evangelists.
Let me break it down a bit more for you since it seems like you've latched on to a sentence and are now quoting it out of context, while also getting emotional.
Subsidising EVs will convince people to buy them who previously wouldn't have due to the price difference - there is clear evidence that this works because it's been done in a number of countries around the world. However, subsidising a class of ICE vehicle isn't going to attract buyers from other ICE classes because people buying the non-subsidised ICE aren't suddenly going to be convinced to downgrade to a lesser ICE vehicle. eg. Subsidising an EV is convincing people to pick the item in column B row 2 instead of column A row 2. Subsidising an ICE is trying to convince people to pick the item from column A row 2 instead of column A row 5. That's very unlikely to happen. If you're not convincing people to buy a lesser ICE vehicle then you're not going to be reducing emissions, are you?
By making the ICE option now even cheaper, you've further made the EV option less of a consideration because that's now basically negated the whole point of subsidizing the EV option has it hasn't done anything to close the gap between the EV and ICE.
Buying a preowned vehicle isn't a bad choice, especially if that preowned vehicle is an EV. Given that the subsidy for buying the new Swift is going to be the same as the subsidy offered on preowned EVs, subsidising the ICE option has now also reduced the likelihood that the buyer is even going to buy that. That's not to mention that subsidies are also being given to second hand ICE vehicles too.
I'm glad the government is doing something, but currently New Zealand is the only one half assing the push to zero emission vehicles.