Administration looking to end subsidies for electric cars


"Companies invest in what's best for their short term gains."

Not necessarily. Many of us look for sustained revenue streams vice short term gains and invest in R&D. Believe it or not, companies do look past 5 years.

"In almost all cases, government funding is behind general purpose technologies."

Almost all? Hardly the case.

"Without it, many of the things that are commercialized and widely used today, would not have existed."

Again, not true.

Lastly, none of what you wrote applies. Electric cars are nothing new. There were electric cars in the 19th Century. These paltry government subsidies were not driving innovation in this area.

Government is not the fount from which all blessings flow. If the demand is not high enough to sustain development cycles, it is not the governments (read taxpayers) to place products on life support.

That was just an example. You completely missed the point however.
Companies invest in what's best for their short term gains. So instead of investing in actual R&D which could take years if not decades to bear fruit, they invest in programs and products that can bring in cash quickly. Like opiods.
In almost all cases, government funding is behind general purpose technologies. Without it, many of the things that are commercialized and widely used today, would not have existed.
Lithium Ion is already obsolete and proton batteries are here, so you can stop worrying about the effects of heavy metal mining on the environment. Copper and Aluminium which are used for wiring and as coils for the stator of electric car motors are fully recyclable as well.
Even if the energy for electric cars comes 100% from non-renewable sources, the impact that they would have on pollution in all major cities across the globe and hence the impact that they will have on the health of our people is reason enough to phase out internal combustion engines for cars.

A Prius is ok. But in reality all electric cars have a few minor problems. They would overload the grid if they become common and fast recharge is used. They are impractical to the point of being dangerous in cold climates. The problem of road use tax has not been solved. The batteries are dirty to produce and worse to dispose of or recycle. The electricity used has to be generated by conventional plants and the overall environmental footprint is actually increased so there is no practical point to them at all except in local/urban use as a second vehicle to impress the neighbors increasing he smug problem. And they are really cute.

The very first one is the subsidy to ethanol producers, not oil and gas.

It's a tax credit to gasoline refiners if they add ethanol to gasoline.;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="" target="_blank" class='link_art' rel='nofollow' >

"The tax credit is worth 45 cents per gallon of ethanol blended with gasoline, costing U.S. taxpayers $5.16 billion in 2009."

The second is a tax deduction provided to all manufactures and producers with short term intangible costs

Wow, dude.

It's got the word "drilling" in it. It's oil and gas specific.

Your greatest strength seems to be willful reading-comprehension failure backed by confirmation bias. Educating you is going to be a lot harder work than it's worth.

Feel free to have the last word.

"I'm going to guess that for the fossil-fuel funded GOP the idea has always been to squash R&D money for green energy, which just might produce affordable forms of renewable energy given the chance."
-You should ask them.

"few things in the universe cost more than prospecting for, extracting, and refining fossil fuels. And the fossil fuel industry is hugely subsidized for those reasons."
-Welcome to reality. Gas cars succeed and electric cars failed in the last 100 years. It took that long to reach the point we are at now. Should the energy needed to get to work cost more than you earn during a day's work?;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://mediabiasfactcheck" target="_blank" class='link_art' rel='nofollow' >https://mediabiasfactchec...iabiasfactcheck....;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://mediabiasfactcheck" target="_blank" class='link_art' rel='nofollow' >https://mediabiasfactchec...iabiasfactcheck....

I will.
The ethanol excise tax credit goes to ethanol producers based on the volume of fuel mixed by refiners. There are various ways the credit gets distributed. One is through the gasoline refiners which is a pass through to the ethanol producers. The other most prominent method is a direct rebate to ethanol producers based on submitted shipment volumes.

Intangible drilling costs are those costs associated with drilling that have no salvageable recovery costs. They are the same type of deductible costs found in all manufacturing organizations. They are called indirect costs and are part of total manufacturing costs and deductible in the same manner by ALL manufacturers.

My greatest strength here is that I know what I am talking about and you do not.

It's not a question of 'give me something for nothing' and I'll do it. It's a recognized need to subsidize emerging technologies until a scale of numbers bring the cost down. The infrastructure needed to mass produce electric vehicles cost billions of dollars. The market is not willing to pay huge prices for electric vehicles, thus the need to provide an incentive to stimulate the market.

What is 'insane' is not bothering to understand the economics of the industry, and why incentives were necessary. The problem is folks like you who give 'knee jerk' responses to very complex and legitimate measures. That fossil fuel energy is killing the planet, and alternatives need to be found and made economically sound is not subject to debate; it's a clearly accepted fact.

I am in favor of eliminating all subsidies. The fossil fuel industry is not highly subsidized in comparison to most other industries. It also depends on one's definition of a subsidy. Royalty payments are not subsidies. Neither are accelerated depreciation schedules that are available to all industries, not just oil and gas. Few things in the universe cost as much as sending a man to the moon.

That aside, the idea is not to squash R&D for developing alternative energy. It is to eliminate subsidized manufacturing for individual consumer preferences.

I also need to add that your $20 Billion number (which itself is not all subsidy) needs to be compared to $2.2 TRILLION in revenues.

It's time for the electric car industry to either stand on their own or fail. The incentive to succeed and reap the windfalls will either drive innovation or not. Propping up the industry with taxpayer money only succeeds in stifling innovation. After all, why innovate when if you DO become even relatively successful the government gravy train stops? Now these manufacturers will need to push the envelope and figure out how to build cars that are affordable (without all the tax breaks) and can go 300 miles and recharge in under 10 minutes. THAT'S what will compete in the US.


It's in the link, genius.

You shouldn't tell me I had no rebuttal if you're not reading the links I gave you.;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="" target="_blank" class='link_art' rel='nofollow' >

Here is a summary of the 2011 oil industry subsidies compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense in its report, "Subsidy Gusher."

Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit - $31 billion.
Intangible Drilling Costs - $8.9 billion.
Oil and Gas Royalty Relief - $6.9 billion.
Percentage Depletion Allowance - $4.327 billion.
Refinery Equipment Deductions - $2.3 billion.
Geological and Geophysical Costs Tax Credit - $698 million.
Natural Gas Distribution Lines - $500 million.
Ultradeepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and other Petroleum Resources R&D - $230 million.
Passive Loss Exemption - $105 million.
Unconventional Fossil Technology Program - $100 million.
Other subsidies - $161 million.