this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2025
383 points (99.2% liked)

News

30414 readers
2880 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Senate Republicans cannot force the U.S. Postal Service to scrap thousands of electric vehicles and charging equipment in a massive tax and budget bill, the Senate parliamentarian said late on Sunday.

The U.S. Postal Service currently has 7,200 electric vehicles, made up of Ford e-Transit vehicles and specially built Next Generation Delivery Vehicles built by Oshkosh Defense.

USPS warned on June 13 that scrapping the electric vehicles would cost it $1.5 billion, including $1 billion to replace its current fleet of EVs and $500 million in EV infrastructure rendered useless and "seriously cripple our ability to replace an aging and obsolete delivery fleet."

Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, whose role is to ensure lawmakers follow proper legislative procedure, said a provision to force the sale could not be approved via a simple majority vote in the Republican-controlled chamber and will instead need a 60-vote supermajority, according to Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 20 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

I’ll never understand how the EV thing became a political issue. I mean I understand how politicians can exploit it as one, but I don’t understand how voters came to see this as a political issue.

These are American made EVs that will lower costs on maintenance and therefore on deliveries why the hell would anyone want to stop this?

Even if you look at it from the angle of protecting the oil, natural gas and coal industry it doesn’t make sense because the energy used to charge cars is generated from those sources.

[–] ysjet@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Because oil money, and it's tied to environmentalism.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Jokes on them, environmentalists don’t even like EVs these days.

Seriously about the only argument in favor of EVs that is not true is that they are cleaner. The air in the cities might be cleaner but at a net level they still produce ungodly amounts of pollution due to lihium mining.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I’ll never understand how the EV thing became a political issue.

I think at first it was viewed as a threat by both the Domestic Auto Industry including the UAW. Tesla was selling an increasing number of vehicles, which is what the Big 3 cared about, and they weren't a Union Shop, which is what the UAW cared about. So they fought the rise of EVs out of self-protection.

It's really the oil industry fighting it now because it's an existential threat. The United States generates almost zero electricity from oil, to them it's all about fuel. Coal has been in steep decline for two decades and as an industry its nearly done. They were replaced by the Natural Gas folks for electricity generation and you won't find many NG folks who are actually against EVs. When you do it's because their parent company is an Oil Company.

Toss in the rise of China as the current best source for EV batteries and the threat that Chinese companies like BYD present to the Big 3 and its easy to see why things are still all knotted up.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

This is great context too, it’s easy to forget that until recently only Tesla made EVs.

I remember also that Tesla said that all their designs would be open source. Whatever happened to that?

[–] lka1988@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 hours ago

This is great context too, it’s easy to forget that until recently only Tesla made EVs.

Tesla is the Apple equivalent to the car world. They were not the only ones making EVs, they just made EVs popular and more widely accepted.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I don't remember anything about all their designs being open source but they DID open source(*) the Roadster.

They also open sourced(*) their charging connector which has now become an increasingly used standard called NACS.

I'm putting that asterisks by open source because that's only sorta-kinda what they did. More precisely they made the Roadster and TCC royalty free to use and released all of the engineering documents necessary to use & recreate them.

What you're probably remembering is their Patent Pledge from 2014. At this point Tesla holds nearly 1,200 patents worldwide so that Patent Pledge isn't a small thing. They're surely not going to make all of their vehicle designs open source but they do seem to be holding to their Patent Pledge and its underlying "Open Innovation Framework".

This doesn't mean Musk or his companies are good, it's just a review of the facts.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Why spend the money to change, when they could just buy a congressman?

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

The problem is that they've started changing and to un-change it would waste a shitload of money

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Or if you look at it from a jobs perspective, a lot of those jobs are still in the US (until you shut them down): do you really want to not only not have those jobs but also not have that industry?

Or if you look at it as a gadget for the well off …. You could decide to just not spend your own money there

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

There’s really no point in opposing EVs except if you think it will win you elections for some reason because your voters think EVs are woke or some shit.

I can understand opposition to EV mandates like in California because it is heavy handed market intervention. But this? This is like forcing federal agencies to continue doing things on pen and paper instead of computers.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Ok But even then ….. I live in a state that elected to follow CARB rules and everyone I know realizes EVs are inevitable and wishes we’d transition faster. Im probably in an echo chamber like everyone else, but the states that were moving most aggressively were also the states that predominantly want to move aggressively….. and vote blue.

It could be one reason we were only 61% blue instead of 65% as in 2020, but there’s really no significant reactionary politics here

My brothers live in purple states, following EPA standards, and resistance to EVs is pretty solid. Why do they care if they’re not even following the more aggressive standards? If they think it’s heavy handed or wastes money, feel free to laugh at “owning the libs” and vote in what you think is your best interest. That’s what I don’t get: not only how it turned political but how are people so strongly against something that doesn’t affect them?

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 hours ago

Yeah no I agree but at a federal level, especially with the outsized economical power California has, you would have to look at if a regulation that they pass could have shockwaves that could be problematic in other states. Like let’s say the top 5 economies in the US decide that ICE engines are banned so now the car manufacturers decide that they can no longer sustain their ICE manufacturing anymore and will only sell EVs. What happens to states that do not have the infrastructure to support only EVs on their roads? So that’s why I say that at a rational level I can understand opposition to that sort of lawmaking.

But actively stopping any organization from adopting a technology that is objectively superior is just stupid. It’s actually anathema to free market capitalism.