[trtcttc]

The main thing that holds widespread adoption was credit. Only longer term drivers could make the move.

Makes sense then why Hertz would get into the business leasing EVs for Uber. Previously, the lack of a convenient supercharging location in the city (just opened by Pixel Park) was probably also holding ride share drivers back.

 

[Patrick.1980]

A driver I had in September told me his buddy was picking up a model 3 and the rest of them were going to watch closely. Lower maintenance/'waking' downtime (oil changes) made a big difference for the cost/benefit calculation we bandied about when chatting. He was considering getting a Model X so he could realize savings plus do Uber XL. Otherwise was going to get a plug in hybrid minivan.

The main thing that holds widespread adoption was credit. Only longer term drivers could make the move.

Taxi drivers have been looking at going full EV for a few years now. Different drivers have tried it out, there was a driver here in Calgary or maybe Edmonton who was piloting one 3 or 4 years ago, but in the end, it all comes down to money, whether it’s credit or whatever it is, it’s $$$ that will decide it.
Calgary and Alberta might have a ways to go yet, I was just in Vancouver where every third or fourth car seems to be a Tesla, but cab drivers are still driving gas or hybrid. If it’s not ready there, then It'll be a while here.
Once it does work out, all the other taxi/cab drivers will follow suit very quickly.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Hertz run a Tesla rental program but only in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal

You can rent a Tesla from Hertz on Macleod.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

This is from the Guardian in collaboration with Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute so take it with that in mind:

This is fairly obvious using even simple logic, what the article fails at is what these always fail at; what are we going to do about it? Also the 1% are bad but the other 9% in the top 10 percent shouldn't feel so good about themselves either. The top 10% of people have the financial capability to both easily affect and easily escape climate change. Note: The top 10% in Canada in 2020 earn $102,400.

Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%, report says

‘Polluter elite’ are plundering the planet to point of destruction, says Oxfam after comprehensive study of climate inequality

www.theguardian.com

 

[Surrealplaces]

This is from the Guardian in collaboration with Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute so take it with that in mind:

This is fairly obvious using even simple logic, what the article fails at is what these always fail at; what are we going to do about it? Also the 1% are bad but the other 9% in the top 10 percent shouldn't feel so good about themselves either. The top 10% of people have the financial capability to both easily affect and easily escape climate change. Note: The top 10% in Canada in 2020 earn $102,400.

Richest 1% account for more carbon emissions than poorest 66%, report says

‘Polluter elite’ are plundering the planet to point of destruction, says Oxfam after comprehensive study of climate inequality

www.theguardian.com

I haven't read through the article, but I'm assuming most of the carbon produced by the top 1% is via air travel, whereas almost none of the poorest 66% travel by air...which brings us back to the issue of what the solution is. We can't just stop air travel, so at the end of the day it's a global problem. Easier said than done, but things that produce carbon need to be taxed globally. Whether it's air travel, or manufactured goods (via carbon producing means) not just from China but from every country.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

I haven't read through the article, but I'm assuming most of the carbon produced by the top 1% is via air travel, whereas almost none of the poorest 66% travel by air...which brings us back to the issue of what the solution is. We can't just stop air travel, so at the end of the day it's a global problem. Easier said than done, but things that produce carbon need to be taxed globally. Whether it's air travel, or manufactured goods (via carbon producing means) not just from China but from every country.

Air travel is part of it but so are their bigger homes (some sitting empty), the energy used to heat and cool their homes (even though they're empty), and they also have bigger vehicles.

It just shows the answer to reduced carbon output isn't a carbon tax, because a carbon tax isn't preventing the top 10% from changing their habits, they an afford them.

 

[trtcttc]

Air travel is part of it but so are their bigger homes (some sitting empty), the energy used to heat and cool their homes (even though they're empty), and they also have bigger vehicles.

It just shows the answer to reduced carbon output isn't a carbon tax, because a carbon tax isn't preventing the top 10% from changing their habits, they an afford them.

This is not a new problem. Many countries have a luxury tax on specific goods precisely because they can afford it. A family driving around a Toyota Corolla year round may emit the same amount of carbon as the rich person driving their V8 convertible in the summer, but we'd all agree taxing the rich person that has a choice in their spending is more useful. There should absolutely be higher carbon taxes related to discretionary goods like private jet travel than home heating.