A legal storm is quietly brewing in the United States following the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw federal subsidies earmarked for state-led electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. At the heart of the dispute is a deceptively simple question: should the lifestyle choices of a relatively small, affluent segment of society be subsidized by the many?
EVs are, at least for now, largely the preserve of the well-heeled. Despite falling prices and generous tax credits over the years, new electric cars remain significantly more expensive than their internal combustion counterparts. Against that backdrop, compelling taxpayers, many of whom will never own an EV, to fund charging stations raises a legitimate concern about equity. Is this prudent public investment, or a redistribution upward dressed in green clothing?
History offers an instructive parallel. When petrol engines began their steady takeover of the roads in the early 20th century, governments did not rush to blanket the nation with filling stations. Instead, market forces took the lead. Demand dictated supply. Entrepreneurs built stations where motorists actually needed them, and infrastructure expanded organically alongside adoption. The system was imperfect, but it was efficient and responsive.
Why should EVs be different? Proponents, you know those that wear hemp tousers, argue that climate urgency justifies intervention. Critics counter that subsidizing infrastructure ahead of genuine mass demand risks white elephants, charging stations gathering dust in places where EV ownership remains sparse. Markets, when left to function, have a habit of revealing where infrastructure is viable and where it is not.
This debate inevitably drifts into the broader climate conversation. While global warming may indeed be occurring, it is far from settled that mankind is its primary driver. Earth’s climate has always shifted, often dramatically, due to macro-scale astronomical factors. One such mechanism is the Milankovitch Cycle: long-term variations in Earth’s orbit, axial tilt, and wobble that alter how solar energy is distributed across the planet. Over tens of thousands of years, these cycles have driven ice ages and warming periods long before SUVs or power plants entered the scene.
None of this is an argument against innovation or cleaner technology. It is, however, a plea for restraint. Let EVs compete, let consumers choose, and let infrastructure follow demand rather than decree. Subsidies may feel virtuous, but virtue funded by compulsion deserves rigorous scrutiny, especially when the benefits flow uphill.
