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.'"
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.
They need subsides to help get started, especially in markets where local government has given fossil fuel groups massive discounts to operate.
There are two problems with your argument:
1. Non-renwables often come with "external" costs, such as pollution that are not accounted for in their financial costs. Someone is paying those prices.
2. New technologies often take a lot of work to make practical, again someone needs to pay those prices to make them viable.
Since we (the U.S. here) have decided not to put taxes (e.g. cap-and-trade) in place to handle those externalities, and we have a history of subsidizing research and development, this is the way we have done it.
That's completely false. Even in areas where the electricity is generated by coal, they still result in lower emissions than gas cars. And as the electric grid gets cleaner, the cars get cleaner. Also, a significantly higher percentage of EV owners install solar, so much of the power is completely emissions free.
We shouldn't be subsidizing luxury vehicles for the wealthy.
Put the money into public transport and renewable energy instead.
EV's are not luxury vehicles for the wealthy, and haven't been for some time.
For example, the Nissan Leaf starts at $30K -- in a country where the average price for a new car is $33K.And no one that's driven a Leaf could confuse it with a Luxury car. Some expensive EV's do receive subsidies... which is good since it means that affluent early adopters pay a premium for new technology and then as the technology is refined, it trickles down into more affordable vehicles.
EV's are part of a renewable energy plan - not only are they more energy efficient and cleaner than gasoline powered cars, they automatically take advantage of the shift to renewable power in the energy grid.
If, as is often stated here, renewables are the most cost-effective energy sources, then they shouldn't need subsidies.
The subsidies for fossil fuels are already built-in to our economy so they are invisible, renewables are the newcomer so their subsidies are more explicit.
I personally don't want to die in a car that is not much bigger then a beer can.
Maybe, but then you should blame American beer can sizes.
Ezekiel 23:20
How many people are buying that leaf? I personally don't want to die in a car that is not much bigger then a beer can. I think They should be elminated for cars that are higher end, like most Tesla model's that cost near 6 figures. Those tax breaks were made specificcly for rich people early on since they were only ones that could afford EV's. So I think Should be an income threshold on who can get those Subsidies.
Around 100K people have bought the Leaf over the past 5 years.
The Leaf has a 5 star safety rating and you're safer driving it than you are driving a full-size pickup. Granted, if you're in a collision with that pickup, you're more likely to die in a small car, but you're still statistically safer in a small car with a good safety rating, because most collisions are not head on collissions between cars.
The point of giving subsidies even for $80K Teslas is that it makes people more likely to buy them (it turns out that even wealthy people like saving money), and the expensive cars are the proving ground for expensive new techology (expensive to produce and maintain), as that technology is refined, then it makes its way into cheaper cars. The $40K Tesla Model 3 would never have existed if the $100K model S wasn't developed first.
Wealthy people care a lot about $7k. That is why they are wealthy.
The Federal $7500 EV subsidy was structured as a tax credit. To take full advantage of the credit, you had to owe at least $7500 on your Federal taxes the year you bought/leased the EV. If you look at the 2016 IRS tax stats, you had to make about $80k/yr (column O*1000 / column N) to receive the full credit, which would put you in the top third of the U.S. by income. Someone making the U.S. median income of $59k would only receive about $4500. Or put another way, the subsidy makes that Leaf cost $3k less for the guy making $80k+ than it does for someone making $59k.
If you don't like EVs, you should be for repealing the subsidy because you don't think EVs should be subsidized.
If you like EVs, you should be for repealing the subsidy because it unfairly benefits wealthy people.
In the 1980's, Reagan used this argument to completely end renewable energy research and development. In the process he handed all the jobs, profits, and other benefits to Asia and Germany.
Yes, right now the electric cars are a luxury item. Back them renewable energy was a luxury few of us could afford. You had to have disposable income to buy your electricity from Green Mountain energy. Unfortunately all those wind turbines are controlled by the Germans and Danes.
Now, I personally find no value in manufacturing in the US. I don't think that our work force, unwilling to be educated beyond the 8th grade, can really manufacture high tech quality products. But if we are going to continue to pursue a manufacturing economy, the Tesla model, god help us, is as good as any path forward. But it is not refined, efficient, or self sustaining.
So we have a choice. Give all the jobs to the Germans, or subsidize the process.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Fossil fuels effectively get one really big subsidy -- they are de-facto allowed to trash the atmosphere and the environment, and generally not required to pay for the necessary cleanup afterwards. That means either the rest of us will have to pay for the cleanup, or (more likely) pay for the ongoing costs of having to live with the mess in perpetuity. Either way, it's a transfer of wealth to the fossil fuel industries from the rest of humanity.
End that subsidy, and unsubsidized renewables become extremely competitive.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
In the scenario you describe, the massive vehicle's engine would be much more likely to slow down by crushing your engine, then run up the body and end up sitting nicely on top of your cabin, which has absorbed a huge amount of energy to break intentionally-weak welds, twist flexing beams, and otherwise slightly deform while keeping the passengers safely inside with minimal change in their protected space.
As it turns out, using "the way most people would expect" is a really poor substitute for using models and simulations to design prototypes, then actually testing them. While people are most afraid of getting crushed by something 3 times their mass, far more injuries and fatalities actually come from the sudden acceleration (or deceleration, if you prefer) during an impact. Making bigger and sturdier cars actually increases the hazard. Instead, vehicles with crumple zones and more flexibility will absorb the impact more slowly, drastically reducing the chance of damaging the occupants.
Sure, it's more likely that your car will look badly damaged in a collision, but you'll live to complain about it.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Want to talk economics? China has lots of companies producing electric cars. The first versions were shit, but they are improving rapidly. Companies like BYD are building new factories all over the place. There's Chinese electric scooters (lots of them), Chinese electric sedans, Chinese electric sports cars, Chinese electric buses, Chinese electric garbage trucks, etcetera. Their technology is improving rapidly and volume is increasing exponentially. They are still nowhere near Tesla quality, but they'll get there eventually.
Meanwhile, what's the US doing? Hitting the brakes to preserve profits for old fashioned ICE engine manufacturers. Until one day, in a decade or so, they wake up to drastically better batteries so nobody wants a loud smelly ICE anymore. And you'll all be driving Chinese cars because the US is way behind the curve.
Way to go for short term economic benefit.
Same goes for green electricity. It's already becoming cheaper than coal, and one day it won't make sense anymore to keep burning stuff to generate electricity. Guess who will have the required know-how for these new technologies? Countries encouraging them, or countries trying to protect their vested interests in old technology? Good luck to the US.
They're not cheaper yet, because of
1. Hidden subsidies for anything oil-related
2. Hidden price of pollution
3. Lack of economics of scale.
By using subsidies, you can increase volume so you solve number 3 and get 1 and 2 as a bonus.
Seriously, if you look at the complexity of a modern ICE engine, how can it possibly be cheaper? Only because the technology for producing enormous quantities of them has already been paid for.
Oil, coal, and natural gas all have subsidies in the form of special tax treatment as well as security paid for by the rest of society ($2 trillion for the gulf war... and 4,000 dead).
Solar subsidies are tiny in comparison. And it's *clear* that solar is going to be superior, less costly, *and* blow a hole in the saudi and russian budgets.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.