Forums

EVs should get more subsidies since fossil fuels have 100 years of aid

EVs should get more subsidies since fossil fuels have 100 years of aid

How about that Libertarians. Either end all subsidies or give EV owners tax breaks

https://www.fuelfreedom.org/oil-company-subsidies/

calvin940 | 9 October, 2019

It's ludicrous that they ever got subsidies given that the industry churns about billions per day. There should be a complete shift of all that monies directly over to renewable energy efforts.

bjrosen | 9 October, 2019

Wind and solar are both subsidized. EVs have the federal tax credit which at this point has become counterproductive, the two companies that did all of the heavy lifting when it came to bringing EVs down into the mainstream, GM and Tesla, are now being punished for being leaders, they are no longer eligible for the Federal Tax credit but all the companies that sat on their hands until now are still eligible. It would be best to end the EV tax credit completely at this point, it's no longer necessary because EVs are competitive on their own terms.

howard | 9 October, 2019

Bernie or OAC will probably be recommending every home is given one for free in the near future. I am sure Elon would give the government a big break for a million+ a year for the next 10 years. Win Win Win.

Mike83 | 9 October, 2019

Math is difficult for some.
What's the difference between $1 trillion and $1 billion?

TexasBob | 9 October, 2019

+1 bjrosen

Kill the EV tax credit. Why should we be subsidizing late-to-the-game (mostly) foreign competitors like Geely (volvo), Tata (jaguar), and the rest? They had their chance. Kill the EV credit, add a surcharge to new vehicles at a rate of $200 per mpg below 35 (i.e. a 30 mpg vehicle has a $1,000 surcharge, a 20 mpg vehicle has a $3,000 surcharge). Use the money to fund public transport improvements.

EVs will take care of themselves.

Tesla2018 | 9 October, 2019

999 billion.

howard | 9 October, 2019

Mike83 | October 9, 2019
Math is difficult for some.
What's the difference between $1 trillion and $1 billion?

To our government nothing. ZERO nada

Lonestar10_1999 | 9 October, 2019

Government subsidies should be directed at expanding public recharging, not the vehicles themselves. Once public charging becomes as ubiquitous as gas stations, the fear of having no place to charge will be eliminated. That would be the tipping point where EV would beat out ICE in every category.

Effopec | 9 October, 2019

Get rid of all energy and transportation subsidies. Start phasing in a zero sum carbon tax. I've read articles that put the total cost of a gallon of gas (including environmental effects) at somewhere over $15/gallon. Start heading in that direction and we'll see where the technology drives us for energy production. I'm guessing there will be EVs in every garage and solar panels on every roof in no time.

Njbrw549 | 9 October, 2019

Ecuador eliminated fuel subsidies and the populace is rioting in the streets.
Stopping the burning of fossil fuels may be similar to stopping a runaway train.

Mike83 | 9 October, 2019

@calvin940 agree and for 100 years they have been taking our money and using it to enrich themselves(kochs, etc.) and avoid the pollution and global warming costs. How many $trillions have they taken along with their billions of profits each year. They don't need subsidies or protection and in fact have been stalling competition by buying politicians, framing straw man arguments and such. It is too obvious.
Too bad that people get so easily brainwashed.

RedPillSucks | 10 October, 2019

Good luck convincing politicians who get lots of money from the oil/gas industry to stop subsidizing oil/gas or to put more subsidies into EV/renewable fuels

SamO | 10 October, 2019

Oil and gas "had" a lot of money. They are currently being removed from every major educational institutional investment fund, as we speak.

Their time is over. Like the dinosaurs which compose much of their products.

Mike83 | 10 October, 2019

You don't have to convince politicians, you only need to vote them out of office. California as naive as voting in con artists who promise you everything but pick your pockets.

Mike83 | 10 October, 2019

Lost a few points there: California is not as naive as other States who vote in con artist.

bjrosen | 10 October, 2019

The EV tax credit has to go, it's succeeded in doing what it was intended to do when President Bush signed it into law which was to get the technology over the hump to to point where it's competitive with ICEVs, that's happened. The Model 3 sells for the same price or less as any of the small performance sedans that it competes with and it's enough better than those vehicles that it's outselling all of them combined. Next year the VW ID.3 shows up in Europe and the ID.4 shows up in the US, VW says that they will be competitive with their equivalent ICE vehicles so all EVs need at this point is time for the charging infrastructure to be built out and for people to get comfortable with the idea of EVs, that's a function of time not of money.

If Congress want's to be less disruptive then they should change the credit to be manufacturer agnostic but put in a short term phase out schedule. Drop it to $5K at the beginning of 2020 then after 6 months start a quarter by quarter phase out of $1K per quarter, i.e. 5K for Q1 and Q2 2020, then 4K for Q3, 3K for Q4, 2K for Q1 2021, 1K for Q2 2021 then nothing.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 11 October, 2019

Mike83: The Cold War strategem of vigilance and preparation for war demands a consistent and reliable ongoing and continual supply line for food, medical supplies, and armament. Strategically, the petroleum industry has provided what seemed to be the sole viable solution to that logistics puzzle for the past 80-to-100 years. By land, by sea, and by air.

So-called Conservatives have won political office often in the past 60-to-70 years by promoting strength in this arena of preparedness and vigilance. Typically they have used a series of alarmist, bogus, imaginary 'WHAT IF...?' scenarios to gain political favor. Always using 'IF' as an agent of fear instead of an Ally of Hope.

So the monies offered as subsidies for the petroleum lindustry for all these decades was actually a bribe, a payoff, a tribute, to make sure that oil kept flowing to the U.S. and our allies even in hard times to come, whatever and whenever they may be. Anyone, everyone, that holds such beliefs dearly purposely chooses to do whatever it takes to maintain that state of eternal vigilance and readiness. They 'just can't see' any other way. And though their position seems hypocritical corrupt illogical unfathomable to many with a Liberal outlook, nothing can convince them that they are anything but 'right'.

To them and their determined world view only the continuation of rampant support for fossil fuels 'makes sense' and all talk of 'clean energy' seems downright foolish. They see the commoditization and utilization of fossil fuels as an economic tool that can be used to control both allies and potential foes alike. And they largely support armament spending for much the same reasons.

People with these attitudes tend to believe in other platitudes that they state by rote as well, regardless of evidence that proves them wrong. They believe wholeheartedly in the installation of a class system, don't really believe in a free open society or liberty of the individual, they believe in oligarchy and authoritarianism and when they claim to be 'Against Big Government', notice they never never make any moves to actually make government any smaller or more efficient even when they are in control of both houses on Capitol Hill and the Presidency. No. What they really mean, but won't say publicly, is that they believe Federal Government should NOT have legal authority over corporations or the oligarchs that own them. They want Government that is smaller than Corporations. They dispute the role of the Federal Government in regulating Corporations or holding thrm accountable in any way.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 11 October, 2019

bjrosen: The Federal Plugin Tax Credit was designed from the outset to 'go', or come to an end, eventually. Section 179 of the Tax Code, created to support sales of overweight gas guzzling perpetually polluting ICE pickup trucks and SUVs that already sell in the hundreds of thousands of units per year to U.S. citizens by offering a Business Tax Credit that is enormously larger than the comparatively paltry $7,500 maximum for plugin vehicles has no expiration, no phaseout, no end, and is effectively eternal. Luckily, it is also poorly written and myopic in scope, by those who lacked imagination and assumed it would ONLY benefit American ICE manufacturers, so its primary consideration of Gross Vehicle Weight Rating allows even the Tesla Model X to qualify for its benefit. I expect BOLLINGER, RIVIAN, and Tesla Pickup trucks will similarly meet the strategic GVWR of >6,200 pounds, thereby qualifying for that benefit as well, even if the Federal Plugin Tax Credit is ended.

Mike83 | 11 October, 2019

ReD. Thanks for posts. Excellent points.

gmkellogg | 11 October, 2019

I'd rather just get rid of all subsidies.

howard | 11 October, 2019

gmkellogg | October 11, 2019
I'd rather just get rid of all subsidies.

+1000

vishious911 | 11 October, 2019

Are we also counting the costs needed in terms of military to secure the oil lines etc?

vishious911 | 11 October, 2019

^ Great use of the oaths taken from our men and women in uniforms /s

andy.connor.e | 11 October, 2019

Responding to your thread title. I agree. But the reality of it is that EVs will not get more subsidies. Our country literally relies on all those fossil fuel subsidies. Imagine what the price of fuel would look like if they all disappeared. Then extrapolate that to increased cost of everything, because literally every single thing about our infrastructure and society depends on the price of fuel because everything uses it. We cant afford to not subsidize. We have to get our energy systems away from fossil fuels so we are not imprisoning ourselves to its dependency.

Like banks being too big to fail, Fossil fuels right now are too dependent to stop.

howard | 11 October, 2019

Andy, Don't agree as the banks would have come through bankruptcy just fine. So would have the auto manufacturers. Subsidies have been more about big business enabling than actual need. Maybe initially but not perpetual. My 2 cents.

andy.connor.e | 11 October, 2019

All i can say is imagine society without the subsidies. We probably would not have an infrastructure dependent on fossil fuels if that was the case, it would have been too expensive.

howard | 11 October, 2019

Andy, Perhaps growth would have been slower and there would have been more emphasis on energy and material efficiencies. We had a new house built back in 2002 and I tried my best to get point of use instant hot water heaters installed. Tried to get point of use HVAC mini-split systems installed per room. Solar, artificial turf and a bunch of other energy and resource savings systems put in place and at that time the builder, the city and HOA would NOT allow it. It was a non-starter. I could probably get it all installed now with some pushing and exemptions but not then. Sometimes the overflowing abundance of cheap energy and materials is not beneficial in the long term. We waste a tremendous amount of everything.

calvin940 | 11 October, 2019

gmkellogg | October 11, 2019
I'd rather just get rid of all subsidies.
---------------------------
Except that fossil fuels received (and still receive) ridiculous subsidies and the playing field is not even and therefore biased to fossil fuels. If the barrier for a lot of people is upfront EV cost, then I suggest we lower that barrier by moving monies also to subsidizing the cost of EV for those that can't purchase due to initial cost

Our desire is to minimize the use of fossil fuels. I see vehicles as a key place to make that happen. We should support the shift of funds to that be it in the form of public charging infrastructure and minimizing the barrier to purchasing an electric car.

howard | 11 October, 2019

Calvin, So if there were no subsidies would it not make fossil fuels more expensive making EV and green energy more attractive by default. Granted I consume a lot of energy at our company so it would need to be a gradual phase-out but I would still like to see it all gone. For that matter foreign aid except for extream humanitarian needs as well.

Tesla-David | 11 October, 2019

I favor eliminating all subsidies, especially all fossil fuel subsidies, making a more equitable playing field for EVs. If the true cost of fossil fuels without being heavily subsidized happened, there would be a dramatic shift and virtual stamped toward EVs. I want a transition away from ICE vehicles as soon as possible. I believe the latest IPPC report that tells us clearly that we have to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions (50% by 2030 and 100% by 2050) in order to have a habitable planet for future generations. The Swedish Youth Activist Greta Thunberg is right to have called out the World Leaders at the UN for slow walking action on Climate Emergency.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/teen-climate-activist-greta-thunberg-...

SamO | 11 October, 2019

Solar and wind is already cheaper than coal, natural gas and new nuke plants.

calvin940 | 11 October, 2019

@howard | October 11, 2019
Calvin, So if there were no subsidies would it not make fossil fuels more expensive making EV and green energy more attractive by default
--------------------------
I actually don't know if that's true (although I don't know it's not true. I really don't have a good handle on the numbers).

However, I would say that even if the lack of subsidies made fossil a bit more expensive, that might not be enough to sway people to move from their comfort zone of fossil fuels to electric, but I think it is something that should happen.

It's a personal thing really. Because I feel it's the right approach, I am thinking about ways we could take that money, remove it from fossil fuels and redirect it elsewhere. I guess if we were doing that, then it's not just about EV or ICE, it could be about humanitarian efforts then. Maybe the two need to be evaluated on their own merits rather than being propped up by external input. I can't say that I am not conflicted about it to be sure.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 11 October, 2019

What truly amazes me is when the same guys that claim EVs cannot be profitable and will not work without subsidies simply refuse to admit/acknowledge that both ICE and petroleum products are supported by subsidies. I do believe that counts as hypocrisy.

Effopec | 11 October, 2019

If FF subsidies were phased out decades ago there would have been much more development money spent on alternatives. Solar, wind and energy storage research would have been funded much earlier. I have no problem with governments funding this type of research when a problem is identified like pollution and climate change. But everything needs to be fair. Companies can't just spew their waste into streams (well, I guess they can now. Thanks Trump), so why can people just spew their pollution into the air at no cost? Now that it is recognized that this is a problem, technology can solve it as long as we are all rowing in the same direction. The problem is here in the US that is not happening right now as our government is bought and paid for.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 11 October, 2019

Effopec: Yeah.

FISHEV | 11 October, 2019

"The EV tax credit has to go, it's succeeded in doing what it was intended to do when President Bush signed it into law which was to get the technology over the hump to to point where it's competitive with ICEVs, that's happened."@bjrose

World PHEV sales 2,200,000
World car sales 70,000,000

3%

That's not going to cut it to get enough PHEV adoption to get 100 cars to 80% less emissions by 2050.

What is needed to get there would be $15K instant credit on non-emssions cars and sliding scale on that so a Clarity, for example, would get $10 credit, credit can be applied immediately to car purchase.

Also China and EU approach of government mandate. You can bag the rebate if simply say no more cars that produce emissions after 2040.

Best approach would be both $15k credit and mandate.

FISHEV | 11 October, 2019

Clarity would get $10k credit.

calvin940 | 11 October, 2019

@Effopec

Imagine where we would be with EV technology if GM hadn't killed EV1 or Shell hadn't bought the battery patent only to shelve it right away and allow nobody else to utilize it. Innovation stifling at it's best.

Splasher | 11 October, 2019

If an industry is subsidized, it's stupid. I would've bought my M3 without the tax credit and second guessed after learning of the subsidy. I wondered what I was missing that was so bad about it. Tesla's thriving and I have enough charge sites now. Anyway, I figure my taking the credit leaves my captors with that much less for their other mischief :-)

A freight conductor, I see trains and trucks hauling in symbiosis. I wonder if fossil fuel and electricity could likewise remain so. For agressing abroad - or protecting [our] interests if you prefer, I hardly see batteries alone handling the job. Either way, do EVs somehow threaten the supply of oil? Are subsidies really needed to fuel our fleets? And might it be better if the fleets payed the real cost for fuel? Perhaps my tykes might have one or two less wars to pay for.

I say end subsidies, even for EVs.

FISHEV | 12 October, 2019

"If an industry is subsidized, it's stupid."@pedersenh1

Or it is a necessary tech that economy must adopt for national security (global warming crisis in this case)( reasons but for which there is not enough economic incentive. Society can't wait for the tech to develop privately.

That's why Obama administration subsidized Tesla with a $500M loan when banks would not.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 12 October, 2019

pedersenh1: I suggest you check out videos by Tony Seba online at YouTube. Those explain in rather exact detail how/why/where EVs '...threaten the supply of oil...' Or, more specifically, the demand for it.

Tony Seba | Why Oil Will Be Obsolete by 2030 (8:06)
https://youtu.be/MAFoqo3Jbro

Here is a reply I posted to someone below that video...

@ChuckO -- Funny thing... NaySayers tend to not own up to being wrong either, no matter how often they are proven wrong.

· ANALysts said FedEx stood NO CHANCE to challenge UPS or the USPS, that the service was simply not needed and had a flawed business case.
· ANALysts said Walmart stood no chance against Sears, JCPenney, and K-Mart, that their strategies for expansion would fail.
· ANALysts said that Amazon would fail, that there was NO WAY people would buy things online, that 'The FUTURE!' was and always would be brick-and-mortar businesses.
· ANALysts said that SpaceX was destined for failure, that there was NO WAY they would EVER compete with the Big Boys from Northrop Grumman, McDonnel-Douglas, Boeing, Hughes, or Lockheed Martin.
· ANALysts said that Tesla was the DOOMED project of an idiot with more money than brains and was destined for failure because no one asked for electric cars, because there was no demand for electric cars, because there was 'only a limited market for expensive electric cars', and because incumbents among 'luxury' automobile manufacturers 'knew how to build cars their customers liked', then when Tesla received accolades for the Model S, growing sales, and a higher stock price they said 'anyone' could make a car with a 'big battery' and that Tesla was just a 'passing fad' that was fulfilling 'pent up demand' and 'were the only game in town' but as soon as competition arrived from established traditional conventional legacy ICE automobile manufacturers Tesla would be killed off in no time... Today, Tesla outsells Cadillac, Chrysler, Lincoln, Jaguar, Land Rover, and Porsche, along with nine other brands in the U.S. and has done so for 21 straight months with no signs of it stopping anytime soon -- not just in passenger car statistics, but OVERALL.

Tony Seba's prediction in 2010 had some qualifiers, it was not absolute. He said 'after 2016' and 'if trends continue' and he was RIGHT. Would you car for more crow, Sir?

Splasher | 12 October, 2019

I like what Tony Seba says. I am confused as to the problem. I hope EVs continue to gain in market share exponentially. While oil supply should stagnate with all tanks full, and aggressive tours abroad should be as cheap as ever, commuters demand for oil will plummet from their switching to electricity. I predict FF subsidies tapering off.

As to government action somehow stimulating or helping, it (government action) lags market and culture, only stepping in to claim the glory of propping up some industry by a subsidy after it's clear the industry will prevail in spite of said government's earlier attempts to regulate or tax it out of existence. EVs time has come, and governments the world over are changing tack. Watch politicians dump oil options for battery ones, then watch subsidies flow to the battery industry. I don't like subsidies.

Earl and Nagin ... | 12 October, 2019

@RED,
ANALists said there would only be a market for about 10,000 cellphones in the world.
The problem I see is that once the car industry became heavily regulated and subsidized, it made the barriers to competition that much higher. This, of course leads to the government having to make the choices - something they are very bad at doing (eg. CAFCP)
One can have a free market or not, however, knee-jerk mucking with it can mess everything up.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 13 October, 2019

Earl and Nagin: Yes. So much of what the government does is in the name of stability, but what it really creates is stagnation. Too many claim to want predictability, but what they really want is to establish monopoly. They say they want ease of use and protection for consumers, but what they really want is to lock out newcomers and 'protect' their cronies from competition, invention, innovation, and imagination. They don't work to make things 'better' for everyone, but to keep things the same for themselves. That way the campaign donations and back door under-the-table kickback payments keep rolling in from the same reliable sources.

Labor organizations, and industry associations, and secret societies all work to make it seem consumer groups, conservationists, and environmentalists are the UN-AMERICAN, COMMIE, PINKO, MARXIST, ALARMIST, FASCISTS all demanding 'change' while portraying the message that they themselves are trustworthy, ordinary, everyday, regular, satisfied, reasonable, prosperous, unchanging representatives of the upright common man. The number of triplespeak terms used there is mind boggling. But ultimately quite accurate, unfortunately.

The only reliable prediction is... CHANGE. Those betting on things remaining the same will lose every time. Just as they have lost for the last twenty, forty, sixty, one hundred years and more.

WantMY | 13 October, 2019

There is no such things as subsidies to consumers - if such exists - it is priced in the car purchase price immediately by greedy manufacturers. Tesla is the best example of price gouging thanks to expiring tax credits exposing it.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 13 October, 2019

WantATTENTION: Please, do point out the ICE automobile from contemporaries to the Model 3, Model S, or Model X built by Acura, Alfa Romeo, AUDI, BMW, Cadillac, Chrysler, Jaguar, Infiniti, Lexus, Lincoln, Maserati, Mercedes-Benz, or Porsche, that are priced more appropriately than Tesla's cars and why. It would be awesome to here your reasoning, if it exists. My guess is, it doesn't.

FISHEV | 13 October, 2019

"So much of what the government does is in the name of stability, but what it really creates is stagnation"@RedX

Says the guy typing on his PC (gov sub) posting the internet (gov sub) about his Tesla (gov sub).

Three strikes to that ideology.

Mike83 | 14 October, 2019

So people think it's OK for company making killing each and every year for decades should continue to get subsidies, free drilling sites, tax breaks and write offs but EV's should only get a tiny tax break for a few years?
Something smells fishy.

https://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-earns-208-billion-2...

andy.connor.e | 14 October, 2019

Only line of defense is to make people believe EVs wont work. People will believe anything the mainstream media news anchor tells them.

fazman | 14 October, 2019

I would rather have zero EV credits and have the price of the car be the true price of what the car is worth. EV credits just make it a PITA to file for, deal with on April 15th of every year, and higher sales taxes + higher registration fees.

As the subsidies are removed from Tesla, the car price is reduced in lock step. The only feature you couldn’t get today is the FUSC on a model 3 that was available for a short period of time.

Pages