For the EV mafioso

[Badunit]

The most egregious fallacy though, is that only EVs are given tax benefits... The reality is that fossil fuels are far more heavily subsidized.

It is a difficult comparison to make.

The government is not providing direct subsidies to the consumer for ICE vehicles, but it has been for EVs.

Gas and Diesel are heavily taxed at the pump. This is like an anti-subsidy for ICE vehicles. When EVs pay their fair share for the roads (assuming that is where this gas tax money actually goes), then this will be a wash.

The oil and gas "depletion" subsidy also applies to mining, such as for lithium and cadmium and nickel.

Some of the "fossil fuel" subsidies are for coal production but get lumped in anyway if the point is to trash gas and oil.

Some "subsidies" are just normal business expenses like all other businesses get to deduct, except they are written specific to things required to be done for oil and gas production.

Oil and gas are used for a lot of things other than ICE vehicles, including home heating and cooking, plastics, and the list goes on and on and on (including in the parts and production of EVs). The entire amount should not be counted against gas and diesel for automobiles.

Electrical power generation companies (where EVs get their juice) receive subsidies. Solar panels and installation are subsidized for consumers, some of whom sell their electricity to the grid for others to use (such as for charging their EVs) and others who use it to charge their own EVs.

The point I am trying to make is that it is difficult to get a completely true and accurate answer when it is this complex.

Also,

"Government subsidy" is usually a misnomer. A subsidy is "monetary assistance". Usually the government is not giving "monetary assistance", they are just taxing you less. Taking less from you is not the same as giving you something. The fossil fuel "subsidies" are mostly tax deductions/credits but a lot of what has been spent propping up the alternate energy markets has been actual monetary assistance, and a whole lot of it.

In the distant past (350 million years ago or so), trees came into existence. They captured carbon, just as they do now, except that when they died there was no bacteria or fungi that could break them down and release the carbon back to the atmosphere. Life nearly died from lack of CO2. We are currently at a historically very low point in CO2 now. If it gets much lower, the plants die then we die. It is quite possible we have been saving the world by burning fossil fuels and other fuels, releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere. Who is to say that today's climate is the ideal one for the Earth as a whole or for people? It is not ideal for plants. We need plants for food and oxygen so maybe what is best for them is best for us as well. Just something to consider.

Sponsored

 

[JesseT]

It I think you are mixing some stuff. Working on improving your market share is one thing, creating law and program to sway some one else market in a different direction is putting your thumb on the scale.

If you look at it through the right lens I think you'll find that my examples are not so distinctly different from each other, but rather represent a continuum of application of State power to influence the transportation market. The main differences between them is how direct it is.

 

[alphawolff]

The bottom line is very simple - it is too early, right now, to be pushing the populace to EVs. There's nothing wrong with offering them as an alternative, but trying to push everyone (i.e. "by 2035 major automakers will be only offering EVs" and so on) is a disastrous idea. At this point in time it looks like EVs are our best choice for the future of individual transportation. But that future is going to come more slowly than many would like, and there's nothing we can do about that...assuming we want to actually IMPROVE humankind's carbon footprint.

EVs are 100% the way of the future, but not with current technology. Lithium flat out isn't stable or efficient enough for widespread use. Too much support is required for them to properly operate, be it the electrical grid itself supplying that energy or the vehicle itself bogged down with components required to get it to properly operate. The weight itself is hilarious.

What's the point of an EV if it weighs 2+ tons as a 4 door sedan? The 10klb hummer is insane.

We need smaller cars again, not this giant truck/suv market we have going on that only exists because it's a way to cheat emission standards. Reduce the EPA regulations and replace them with size regulations. Would help so, so much.

 

[GinaC]

My response to this argument will always be "don't let perfect be the enemy of good".

 

[TheRaven]

My response to this argument will always be "don't let perfect be the enemy of good".

I think it might be more appropriate to say "don't let good be the enemy of progress".

Although, since the point of the EV is to be better for our planet than an ICE powered automobile, "good" is a level we haven't yet reached, from the carbon footprint perspective.

 

[ColonelSanders]

EV technology will keep improving because people like me bought what was available in EVs now. Solar is improving. Mining for the batteries is improving.

ICE has plateaued. It’s had its day and will be eclipsed.

 

[2nd 392]

Had un manipulated market forces been allowed to prevail this thread, this conversation, this argument, this controversy, “blind hatred” of EV’s, on and on would not have occurred. It would simply be a matter of consumer choice. As EV’s improve they will be more attractive for more consumers. But Nope ! Among others
Subsidies, rebates, incentives, tax credits, or bribes by any other name are manipulating the market.

“JD Power’s study confirmed the federal tax credits have played a critical role in consumer decisions :

Among premium brand EV owners, 64% say that incentives were a primary driver of a decision to lease or purchase their EV. Among mass market EV owners, 49% selected their vehicle based on tax credits and incentives.
Tax credits and incentive programs were cited as the top reason for purchase among 81% of Volkswagen buyers, 77% of Chevrolet buyers, and 72% of Tesla buyers”. It continued with a lower % for others.

 

[driventoadventure]

It is a difficult comparison to make.

The government is not providing direct subsidies to the consumer for ICE vehicles, but it has been for EVs.

You're not wrong that it's a difficult comparison, but that doesn't detract from the point that it's an incredible fallacy to say that one is benefited where the other is not.

Gas and Diesel are heavily taxed at the pump. This is like an anti-subsidy for ICE vehicles. When EVs pay their fair share for the roads (assuming that is where this gas tax money actually goes), then this will be a wash.

The oil and gas "depletion" subsidy also applies to mining, such as for lithium and cadmium and nickel.

Some of the "fossil fuel" subsidies are for coal production but get lumped in anyway if the point is to trash gas and oil.

Some "subsidies" are just normal business expenses like all other businesses get to deduct, except they are written specific to things required to be done for oil and gas production.

Depending on how the vehicle use taxes are applied, and in some states such as California, Colorado, and states which impose taxes based on value and/or use, the lack of "at the pump" taxes is calculated into other registration fees etc.

The data I used was attempting to count direct government subsidies, but as I mentioned it can be hard to track without spending academic quantities of time on one specific topic - but the point again remains that there are many more benefits granted to oil&gas which both directly and indirectly benefits ICE than anyone who tries to imply that only EVs are subsidized.

As to the subsidies for Coal - those are equivalently beneficial to both parties, which is why I tried to also remove that with the only ~hour I spent, double-checking the numbers I found - and I am a huge proponent of that should all be eliminated anyway - especially Coal...

Oil and gas are used for a lot of things other than ICE vehicles, including home heating and cooking, plastics, and the list goes on and on and on (including in the parts and production of EVs). The entire amount should not be counted against gas and diesel for automobiles.

As much as you're not wrong, you still have to account for the fact that those directly benefit ICEs and are an enormous part of the reason why gasoline and Diesel are so cheap. Having worked in the energy industry for two decades, I can assure you that the primary product of oil IS fuel. All of the other products are nothing more than industry finding ways to make efficient use of the waste left over after producing fuel.

Electrical power generation companies (where EVs get their juice) receive subsidies. Solar panels and installation are subsidized for consumers, some of whom sell their electricity to the grid for others to use (such as for charging their EVs) and others who use it to charge their own EVs.

The point I am trying to make is that it is difficult to get a completely true and accurate answer when it is this complex.

You're not wrong, but keep in mind that transportation energy accounts for ~0.2% of electricity consumption in the US. That's ALL transportaiton, including electrified rail... You know who are major enough users to have their own power plants? Refineries. Granted, many instances those are mainly producing steam and VARs, but when a moderate refinery uses rougly 400-500MW of energy, only a few refineries use as much power as the entirety of electrified transportation annually...

Also,

"Government subsidy" is usually a misnomer. A subsidy is "monetary assistance". Usually the government is not giving "monetary assistance", they are just taxing you less. Taking less from you is not the same as giving you something. The fossil fuel "subsidies" are mostly tax deductions/credits but a lot of what has been spent propping up the alternate energy markets has been actual monetary assistance, and a whole lot of it.

In the distant past (350 million years ago or so), trees came into existence. They captured carbon, just as they do now, except that when they died there was no bacteria or fungi that could break them down and release the carbon back to the atmosphere. Life nearly died from lack of CO2. We are currently at a historically very low point in CO2 now. If it gets much lower, the plants die then we die. It is quite possible we have been saving the world by burning fossil fuels and other fuels, releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere. Who is to say that today's climate is the ideal one for the Earth as a whole or for people? It is not ideal for plants. We need plants for food and oxygen so maybe what is best for them is best for us as well. Just something to consider.

The problem is that the changes in CO2 levels that are being bandied about as "historic" are changes which occurred over MILLIONS of years. There has never, ever, in the 4543 million years the world has been around been this rapid a change without catastrophe. Let's put this into more directly comparable numbers.

Some of the lowest atmospehric CO2 levels since life was abundant on this planet have occurred over the last 3,000,000 years or so, with levels between ~175ppm and ~300ppm. That's around 5 times how long modern humans have existed as a species. Homo Erectus didn't even exist until a 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 years into this nadir of atmospheric CO2. Data (ice core samples, plant core samples, many sources enough to corroborate a fairly tight range) shows that atmospheric CO2 was around 280ppm as recently as the mid 1800s when industrialization really started to catch on.

Again, for perspective, for the last ~2,999,850 years, atmospheric CO2 was less than 300ppm. To stress how slow natrual changes are, the last time atmospheric CO2 was above 400ppm, was rougly 5,000,000 years ago, meaning that it took the planet roughly 2,000,000 years to change by 100ppm, and life was allowed a greater timespan than humanity as we know it has been arond to accomodate those changes.

Here's where the seriousness of our problem crystalizes: since ~1873, atmospheric CO2 has gained 140ppm of atmospheric CO2 to become ~420ppm. That means in 150ish years time, atmospheric CO2 has increased to levels that haven't been observed within more than 5,000,000 years - changing at a rate 13,333 times faster than anything we would recognize as life has ever seen before. You have to look at catastrophic events such as the Chixculub (PS if you google that, something really cool happens - I didn't know until I did that just to verify my spelling) to see changes on the scale that we're causing, and it's not a surprise the effect that had on the planet...

 

[BXFXJeep]

EVs ain't going anywhere, electricity is unreliable, leave the West, and electricity becomes even more unreliable for the vast majority of people.

Hopefully someone put an end to these EV subsidies soon.

Subsidizing a gas guzzler like the 4xe masquerading as an EV should never have happened.

 

[nagoya10]

Power Plants, at least coal or natural gas powered ones, are being closed and more will be closed down in the future. In my state, Illinois, the far left legislature and governor (who plans to run for POTUS in 4 yrs) have legislated away any fossil and nuclear fuel powered power plants and the state will become green power only in the near future. Without out of state power being brought in, the state won't even be able to keep up with normal power requirements, let alone all the electric only products that are being either forced upon us or eliminating any alternatives, with green energy only. Imagine what the increased cost of electricity will be as this green energy stuff moves forward.

Until EV's become far better in range, battery life, speed and ease of charging and more affordable, they are not ready for prime time in my estimation. I like them, especially the hybrid type like the 4xE, but not with all the drawbacks and costs for only 22 miles range.

 

[rforbes]

Well, this is a fascinating conversation. Really enjoying the exchange here.

My thoughts echo some above. While What he said has some truth, as time keeps moving forward it becomes less truth. Certainly now it is less true than it was 15 years ago and in 15 years it will be even less true.

And I get people not liking the government telling them what kind of cars they can drive. I also remember what southern california was like in the 70's and 80's before CARB. It was freaking miserable.

 

[NWJeepr]

EVs are 100% the way of the future, but not with current technology. Lithium flat out isn't stable or efficient enough for widespread use. Too much support is required for them to properly operate, be it the electrical grid itself supplying that energy or the vehicle itself bogged down with components required to get it to properly operate. The weight itself is hilarious.

What's the point of an EV if it weighs 2+ tons as a 4 door sedan? The 10klb hummer is insane.

We need smaller cars again, not this giant truck/suv market we have going on that only exists because it's a way to cheat emission standards. Reduce the EPA regulations and replace them with size regulations. Would help so, so much.

The market doesn't "want" smaller cars. People buy small cars out of necessity, mostly. EPA and CAFE regs do encourage vehicles with larger footprints, but that also coincides with market forces and how people use their vehicles.

EV technology will keep improving because people like me bought what was available in EVs now. Solar is improving. Mining for the batteries is improving.

ICE has plateaued. It’s had its day and will be eclipsed.

This. ICE is at an intersection of power/efficiency that can't be elevated without extremely costly improvements on the efficiency side. These are investments automakers don't want to make, and consumers don't want to pay for.

EV, hydrogen, whatever...in the end, I don't care. I don't want to be paying $1.99 for gas or $1.50, I don't want to be paying for gas, period. Electricity is so cheap in my part of the country. We've spent ~$500 on "charging" over 11k miles in the first year of EV ownership. And that's for a large crossover that does 0-60 in 4.4 seconds with 324 miles of actual range (BMW iX). Those who don't own an EV just don't know that the challenges for most people are vastly overstated and the benefits are pretty awesome. We need to be open to change.

 

[ColonelSanders]

Subsidizing a gas guzzler like the 4xe masquerading as an EV should never have happened.

Neat thing about the 4xe.. it’s less of a gas guzzler than the ICE wranglers and has more power, even if you don’t charge it. It’s a stepping stone in innovation, and right now it’s better than an EV for people without access to good infrastructure because it’s a PHEV. These subsidies on American made EVs are just like tariffs, but a carrot instead of stick and other countries don’t retaliate.

 

[BXFXJeep]

Neat thing about the 4xe.. it’s less of a gas guzzler than the ICE wranglers and has more power, even if you don’t charge it. It’s a stepping stone in innovation, and right now it’s better than an EV for people without access to good infrastructure because it’s a PHEV. These subsidies on American made EVs are just like tariffs, but a carrot instead of stick and other countries don’t retaliate.

I get about the same 15 mpg city like I did with the 2018 3.6 JL, pure highway I get about 22 mpg, the 3.6 I got around 25mpg.

I like my 4xe, but this thing is a gas guzzler like any other Wrangler when the gas engine gets going.

The subsidies is just another one of many transfer of wealth schemes.

 

[rforbes]

I get about the same 15 mpg city like I did with the 2018 3.6 JL, pure highway I get about 22 mpg, the 3.6 I got around 25mpg.

I like my 4xe, but this thing is a gas guzzler like any other Wrangler when the gas engine gets going.

The subsidies is just another one of many transfer of wealth schemes.

having a smaller capacity fuel tank certainly doesn't help in the gas guzzler feel. I am getting a 12 gallon tank to put behind the spare tire.

Sponsored