Slashdot Mirror
Trump Administration Wants To End Subsidies For Electric Cars, Renewables (reuters.com)
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said on Monday that the United States wants to end subsidies for electric cars and other items including renewable energy sources. "Asked about actions planned after General Motors announced U.S. plant closings and layoffs last week, Kudlow said he expected subsidies for buying electric cars will end in 2020 or 2021," reports Reuters. "Kudlow said the Trump administration will end other subsidies, including on 'renewables.'"
We shouldn't be subsidizing luxury vehicles for the wealthy.
Put the money into public transport and renewable energy instead.
If, as is often stated here, renewables are the most cost-effective energy sources, then they shouldn't need subsidies.
And if they Do, in fact, need the subsidies, then they're NOT the most cost-effective energy sources....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
This is only reasonable if we tax fossil fuels. Renewables are generally cleaner than fossil fuels, though not entirely clean. Energy should be taxed based on the costs to repair the environmental damage that has to be cleaned up and the costs of mitigating their impacts. In this respect, fossil fuels are far more expensive and should be taxed at a higher rate that reflects their true costs of use.
Fine, but take the rest of the subsidies with them. Whether that's the farmers, the oil companies, the various housing subsidies, or anyone else getting a deal. The U.S. has slowly morphed into a petty kleptocracy where everyone is picking everyone else's pocket. Just end the madness and let the people who are incapable fail. There's no need (other than votes) for the government to try to prop them up.
Either the people who say renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels are right or not. I'll keep an eye on my energy company Xcel.
Last time I checked, the US Constitution says it's Congress, specifically starting in the US House of Representatives, that makes laws.
Presidents who don't control the House have very very very little power.
They're Weak.
Sad.
Maybe he should try getting an actual trade deal with China, because the Chinese translation of the "deal" says he has no deal, so he's just being Weak. Again.
Take that and stuff it in your Denial pipe.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
We should give generous subsidies to nuclear energy. Minor subsidies should be given to current reactors to keep them above water. Major subsides (100's of billions to start) should be spent on next generation nuclear. NuScale has passed phase 1 of the NRC review, and their first 12 SMR's are going to be built in Idaho. We should heavily subsidize this project and all future ones. We should also subsidize other 4th generation nuclear when their reactors pass nrc review. If and only if we do that, we will have a chance at mitigating climate change.
The URL in the top post leads to a story about trade talks. Different source, but the material about subsidies.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
$20 billion per year in DIRECT subsidies for fossil fuels, not including cleanup, military spending, health care costs and similar. https://www.vox.com/energy-and... As long as you remove the $20B fossil fuel subsidy, you can level the playing field and remove the ~$7B from renewables. There's no question where the investments will be going forward.
Yes we should let Alexandra Ocasio Cortez run the country. She is absolutely brilliant.
I'm having a really hard time trying to decide if you are criticizing ICE vehicles or EVs. I guess I'll assume you're referring to ICE vehicles and agree with you whole heartedly. They absolutely should stop subsidizing the petrol industry and the internal combustion engine. It's quite shortsighted to be disadvantaging EVs.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
In the name of "man made" Global Warming!!!! Oh noes!!!
(I do not like welfare. For individuals AND companies.
Corporatism != Free Market
I see this counter argument all the time, but I have never seen numbers to back it up.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Perhaps they'll also kill the (up to) $12 Billion in subsidies to farmers getting hammered by the Administration's own tariffs. Oh, wait ...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
This is just Trump fluffing the Saudis.
Thanks for that imagery.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
To the tune of about 50 cents per gallon. This far, far exceeds the subsidy oil companies receive, which works out to less than 10 cents per gallon even if you attribute the entire subsidy to gasoline (they make other products with oil too, like kerosene, asphalt, plastics). I think heating oil is the only petroleum product which is generally exempted from taxes (because poor people freezing to death in winter makes bad press for politicians).
You can argue we're not taxing fossil fuels enough. But it's silly to pretend they're not taxed. As the Tesla EVs are rated at about 30 kWh per 100 miles, at the U.S. average electricity price of 11.5 cents/kWh, that works out to $3.45 of electricity per 100 miles. A 25 MPG vehicle pays $2 in fuel taxes per 100 miles, so its taxes amount to 58% of the electricity price needed to power the EV. In some states with higher fuel taxes, the fuel tax alone is about the same as the cost of electricity to power an EV over the same route.
Then you should also be in favour of ending fossil fuel subsidies, including implicit subsidies for pollutants.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Huge advantage for Electric Tanks. Less that can go wrong, More space for shells... ect... Keep the subsidies/ tech improvements coming. :)
[($)]
Those of us with solar panels on our roofs in states that offer "SREC" credits should already be used to this....
Once promised as a great way to make your solar panels pay for themselves, SRECs are now practically worthless in every state with the program, except for maybe Washington DC. (That's only true there because a lot of people can't put solar panels up since they rent or live in multi-level properties where they don't own rights to put things on the roof. And another big segment of DC is too poor to be able to afford them, regardless of subsidies. It's pretty rare in DC to own a property with a lot of square footage, where you can generate a lot of power from panels, too.)
As far as I'm concerned, you shouldn't need a government tax credit to justify your purchase of a vehicle. Everyone I've met who purchased a new Tesla, for example, could afford the car without that credit and would, indeed, have purchased it anyway. The rest of us who own them waited to get a deal on an older, used one, which didn't qualify for the credit in the first place.
You might have SOME argument that the credit is more attractive to the middle class customer who considers a car like a Chevy Volt / Bolt or a Nissan Leaf. But even then, I think a lot of those buyers are only buying them because they're on an "environmentally friendly" kick, trying to prove they leave a small carbon footprint. IMO, that's financially foolish of them - but who am I to tell others how to spend their money? Again, if you're honestly buying because you're trying to come out ahead with cost savings on gasoline, you'd be a lot further ahead of the game to buy a used one.
I assume he'll also be ending subsidies for fossil fuels, right?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
While there may be tax credits at the Federal level, at least 17 states charge additional registration fees for electric vehicles once the battery gets above a small (hybrid) battery size.
They do this to make up for loss gas taxes, but charge for such at a flat rate that does not factor in mileage or if you have a plug-in hybrid.
So if you purchase your electricity from charging stations which try to be gas-price equivalents, you end up paying more to fuel an electric car than had you just fueled a gas one.
When Georgia implemented their fee (one of the highest at $200/year, $300/year for commercial use), Tesla sales fell 83% and did not recover. This was true even though the state also had an electric-car income-tax purchase discount.
..or earlier, and he tries to do that by fiat.
Meanwhile fossil fuels are not only helping destroy the environment of the planet we live on, but they're also a limited resource. So-called 'renewables' are not a limited resource, by definition. We need to move away from polluting, limited resources, and towards non-polluting, renewable resouces. People are creatures of habit; they're not going to change without a reason to do so. You have two basic philosophies to help you motivate them: carrot, or stick. Subsidies are the carrot; taxes are the stick. People greatly prefer the carrot. Make renewables, and electric vehicles, more affordable for a while until they're well-established, and the move to them will be self-sustaining. Meanwhile make fossil fuels more and more unattractive (the stick), and people will shy away from them. Eventually: mission accomplished. Away from fossil fuels and towards alternatives is the direction we inevitably need to go. Meanwhile Trump wants to turn all this upside down, and use the Stick on the alternatives, and give the Carrot to the Old Ways. He is clearly wrong.
The $7500 EV tax credit was put in place by an Act of Congress. Only another Act of Congress can repeal it - the Trump Administration cannot unilaterally order it's removal.
Otoh, there's a possibility that Kudlow might just be spitballing that by 2021 all the major vehicle manufacturers will have sold their 500k's worth of eligible vehicles triggering the tax credit's automatic phase out.
"Only" 200,000 miles?
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
They're not "limited" in that they suddenly stop working after 1000 charge cycles; that's just the rated cycle count before they expect a 20% drop in capacity.
Lithium batteries can also do a lot more shallow charge/discharge cycles; Keeping the charge within 20%-80% and it the cycle count goes up to 5000+.
Even the oldest Model S on the road still have at least 90% of its original capacity.
f it costs the same as an average new car, then why the need for a tax credit?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
This actually looks like some smart politic-ing by Trump. The federal subsidy is basically coming to an end on its own, as planned. The credit phases out after a manufacturer reaches 200,000 sales. According to Wikipedia, Tesla has hit that number, GM is about 4,000 away from hitting it, and all the other manufacturers are around half way there. With sales increasing I'm sure they'll hit it pretty quickly too.
End result is that for al intents and purposes, the subsidy is going to phase itself out over the next year or so. So basically Trump says, "we'll end the subsidy", and then the subsidy ends on its own for all the major manufacturers, and Trump claims victory. His constituents see action, while the businesses get what was initially promised to them.
The vast, vast majority of people don't have electric cars. Is the fact that urban tanks are the best-selling cars a good thing? Probably not. Still, this is clearly not an incentive and a lot of resources are benefitting a tiny, tiny handful of people. It's called: 'This didn't work, let's try something else.', not, 'I hate the earth and want it to die.'. Be pissed at the American consumer if you insist on choosing a target.
They sent it to MBS.
Oil is a strategic reserve. Tanks, warplanes, warships runs on oil
Governments of G20 will keep and support oil industry.
We will cut oil in civil sectors, but not completely. This means we will be far far away from 0% emissions for a long time. Learn to live in +5 degrees climate.
Now.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.