Let Americans drive the best electric vehicles

Washington Post

21-07-2025

American consumers are being denied access to some of the world's most advanced and affordable electric vehicles (EVs) — specifically those made by China's BYD, the world's largest EV manufacturer.
BYD produces sleek, efficient models, such as the Seagull, which sells for about $8,000 in China. Yet American buyers can't even test-drive them due to strict tariffs, protectionist policies and geopolitical tensions. While these policies aim to protect American jobs and national security, they also limit consumer choice and hinder climate goals by slowing EV adoption. Meanwhile, American EV makers struggle to deliver truly affordable, mass-market models.
If the U.S. wants to lead on climate, it must embrace — or at least allow — competition. Consumers should be trusted to choose the best vehicle, not forced into a corner by policy walls.
Jagjit Singh, Los Altos, California
I am Canadian and the proud owner of a Tesla Model Y. I don't own Tesla stock directly, unless it's a small part of my mutual funds investments.
Americans might not agree with Elon Musk, MAGA or other politicians including the president, but they should not forget that Tesla cars available for sale in the U.S. are designed, assembled and sold by fellow Americans.
When cars are being trashed or vandalized, it's not Musk who suffers the consequences. He is rich enough not to have to care.
Tesla revolutionized the automotive industry and started a worldwide race to electrify a semi-dormant manufacturing sector, pushing cars into the 21st century.
China immediately pounced on the opportunity, copying and improving some aspects of electric vehicle manufacturing. It lowered the price of the cars and is in the process of flooding the world market. Trade barriers for Chinese imports won't work in the long term.
If an American company such as Tesla does not take the lead in electric vehicle innovation and production, a Chinese company will. A few years from now, perhaps even sooner, Americans will mourn the lost opportunity of being the world power in the electric car industry.
Vladimir Sorin, Markham, Ontario, Canada
The Post's July 5 Climate article 'In fight over clean energy, Trump condemns it as 'ugly'' noted that President Donald Trump believes that wind and solar energy equipment is ugly. His insight is a little late and also completely unoriginal. Impressionists of the 19th century believed that industrialism was ugly.
Whoever is committed to industrialism and all the creature comforts it provides is also committed to 'ugly.'
Wayne Bert, Arlington
Regarding The Post's July 5 editorial, 'Trump could lead a nuclear renaissance':
President Donald Trump's real estate and dealmaking experience could benefit the country should he turn it toward establishing a spent nuclear fuel repository. Recycling of used fuel could yield more useful energy and less volume to be deposited.
First, some perspective: Only about one square mile is used for a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant, and about eight square miles are used for the nameplate-equivalent solar facility. (Results may vary: Say, if one includes the emergency planning zone of a nuclear power plant — a zone that should shrink substantially with newer reactors — and if one includes the addition of a larger solar facility footprint to account for intermittent energy production and the need for backup power plants or batteries at night.) Such footprints are important considerations as energy needs grow.
However, waste streams also need to be addressed. Someone with real estate and dealmaking prowess could help break the logjam in Congress with finding locations and constituents — e.g., workers looking for jobs and local economies — to host recycling and repository facilities for spent nuclear fuel. Aging solar panels and worn-out batteries from a much bigger footprint will need attention as well.
Steve Michals, Fairfax
I want the Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspectors to focus on engineering, science and regulatory requirements.
An important part of the application for these positions requires the applicant to address: 'How would you help advance the President's Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired. Maximum length of 1200 characters.'
In the past, inspectors looked for safety and compliance issues in accordance with NRC policies. Their jobs are to focus on safety and not the president's policies. I hope we won't soon have inspectors who prioritize the president's wishes over safety, similar to Russian political commissars who enforced party lines rather than public health and safety.
Jim Lieberman, Silver Spring
The writer is a former director of the Office of Enforcement at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and assistant general counsel for enforcement.
Central Texas just saw one of its deadliest disasters in a century. Flash floods swept through the Hill Country — especially along the Guadalupe River — killing more than 100 people, including dozens of children at Camp Mystic. The river surged more than 26 feet in under an hour, transforming a tranquil valley into a lethal waterway.
This wasn't a freak accident. 'Flash Flood Alley,' the area where the Hill Country meets the Guadalupe watershed, is inherently flood‑prone due to steep, impermeable terrain that funnels torrential rain into narrow river valleys. Yet we continue to build homes, summer camps and schools right on those riverbanks. We experience a flood, rebuild with the help of government-backed insurance and do it all again after the next disaster. The National Flood Insurance Program was not designed to enable repeated spending on doomed homes. Yet, it has done precisely that. It underwrites the rebuilding of homes in inherently unsafe zones, frequently at great public cost. And then there's federal emergency funding, which doubles down after every flood.
Low-lying land along rivers and floodplains is not suitable for residential development. Areas near the Guadalupe River — and other flash-flood hot spots — must be rezoned immediately and used for agriculture.
State and federal governments should cease issuing rebuilding permits in floodplains, deny NFIP payouts for new construction in those zones and convert flood areas into conservation lands or green infrastructure zones. If homeowners insist on tearing down and rebuilding, fine. But if they want to rebuild below the flood line? Deny the permits. Block the insurance. Let truth in zoning drive rational choices.
If we don't legislate smart land use, we will continue to see paddle boats on streets in Houston during hurricane season and sobering headlines every time Gulf Coast rains roll inland.
Moshe Alamaro, Cambridge, Massachusetts
The writer is a retired atmospheric scientist.
As a 17-year-old high school student, I'm terrified by how climate change is making floods such as the one at Camp Mystic this month more frequent and more intense. It's heartbreaking to think of children just like me who might have their lives forever changed or even cut short by increasingly dangerous floods, hurricanes and wildfires.
Yet, at the very moment we most need them, our leaders are gutting the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service. These agencies give us critical warnings and save lives. By slashing funding for forecasting, research and emergency alerts, we're gambling with the lives of my generation and the ones that will come after.
We shouldn't leave our future up to chance. We deserve a country that values keeping people safe over budget cuts that put all of us in danger.
Anagha Iyer, Miramar, Florida
Regarding Michael J. Coren's July 17 Climate Coach column, 'If we want more affordable housing, we need to get creative':
Coren's creative solutions for overcoming the affordable housing deficit are well worth consideration by every public official and civic group seeking to make headway on the issue. Regardless of whether one agrees with all of the proposed strategies, putting a wider range of options on the table is desperately needed. Alternatively, we will remain stuck among 'just build more' thinking, financing challenges, and housing and land use policies that do not consider the significant needs of lower-income people, including older adults.
I would add 'maximize use of existing housing stock' as an option. Consider older adults: An AARP survey last year found that 75 percent of adults ages 50 and older hoped to remain in their current home for as long as possible, commonly referred to as 'aging in place.' Of course, some people have the means to keep their homes in good shape and make whatever modifications they want or need. For older people, people with disabilities and others of more modest means, their dwellings might become increasingly uninhabitable.
To keep units in habitable condition, particularly for older adults and people with disabilities, we could expand weatherization and accessibility modification services. Resources such as Rebuilding Together could grow and help with necessary modifications as well as regular updating and maintenance. We could incentivize building upon the bones of housing in declining neighborhoods.
Home-sharing programs, with protections built in for both owner and renter, are another option to make rent more affordable and offset costs for owners. In doing so, the number of affordable units would increase — again, without building new structures and adding to the supply of affordable units. Or invest in cooperative 'villages,' a concept in which residents in a given area pool their resources to help one another with tasks such as repairs, transportation and appointments. We could also expand in-home health services to make care available and affordable to those whose needs fall far short of assisted living or long-term care.
Building more affordable housing is imperative. Capitalizing on existing housing stock should be a part of the equation as well.
Irv Katz, Falls Church