Fossil Fuel industry trying to shut down electric vehicles

What is not a subsidy? Military escorts for oil tankers? Cleanups and management of oil spills? If the government is spending money on this, it's a subsidy. How can you ignore it? I would even argue that using taxpayer dollars, and not gas taxes, to pay for roads, is a subsidy.[

 

This is not much expenditure compared to finding it (write-off of failures) and developing the field for production. But as you have said, the shareholders are not stupid and there is still good profit to be made from oil.

Corruption was also the case with oil. Just look at Nigeria. Go on, take a peek. How hard do you think the Saudi royal family has worked?

Source? SO they put them out of business and the buy them. Why? If they are out of business there is no point in buying them,is there?

Absolutely. That is precisely what is worrying climate scientists.

 

Arguably, the entire Middle East is a subsidy....

 

That's ridiculous. Oil companies pay for cleanups. And the military protects the rights of US companies.

 

You, guys, avoid arguments and facts I give to you, quote out of context and proclaim most irrational beliefs not backed up any logic or facts as true.

Climate scientists claim that accumulations of millions upon millions years can be burned within a few hundred years. It is not only laughable, but practice has showed it to be false since the first day of the claim.

Climate scientists worrying that Exxon Mobil will run out of oil is totally hilarious. Do you think before you type?

Are the same scientists telling you about earthquake from fracking and all other horrors? With the same logic and facts behind their peer reviewed studies?

Shale oil is a product which either can or cannot make profit. If you buy a land with shale products you try to see if you can extract hard oil and sell at market price to your neighbor instead of easy easy oil from far away behind 2 oceans.


Look, I keep on trying to tell you about efficiency, but it seems you are stuck in your indoctrination and your good feelings.

Why are you telling me that corruption can be found in oil industry, instead of arguing me pointing to the facts that all renewable is based on corruption?

When I explain you why Soros and Obama had been putting coil mining out of business why are asking me why did they do that? You really don’t know that it is an old, old trick used by corrupted politicians? How difficult is to Google Soros buys coal mines? Does he do it because of charity or stupidity?

Let me post some smiley instead of expanding any further to show that anything you say is not ridiculous as AFM claims, but it is beyond being ridiculous.

Where is that smiley?

 

You were saying?

https://thinkprogress.org/25-years-...-long-term-environmental-damages-b5a325b28ee1

The long-term plan for rehabilitating damaged resources has yet to be implemented a full quarter century after the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spewing more than 11 million gallons of crude oil into the surrounding ecosystem.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robert...axpayers-subsidize-15-3-billion/#2a0b704f36b2

In BP's Final $20 Billion Gulf Settlement, U.S. Taxpayers Subsidize $15.3 Billion

 

I'm afraid you haven't provided any sources to back up any of your assertions,

 

That $80K price tag will....and they are not the only company making electric vehicles.

 

Lets be fair, they use the term "subsidy" but its a tax deductible expense. Its like claiming that Uncle Sam subsidizes your wages because your employer can deduct the expenditure against revenue. It is not a subsidy because the government never had a right to that money. Tax is paid on profit - no profit, no tax. It is potential revenue that is now lost to the government, for sure.

In addition, the 15.3 bln is the tax deductible amount, so the "subsidy" is a third of that, and that final settlement is in addition to $32bln already paid (tax deductible) and another $4 in non-deductible expenditure already paid.

Finally, they don't receive a tax payout from the government when they make a loss. It will be carried forward to reduce future tax payments but the total cost of $62bln will take them years of tax profit to recoup against those carried-forward tax losses.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/07/14/bp-deepwater-horizon-costs/87087056/

 

Isn't it a bit hypocritical for you to type rants against the petrochemical industry on a device that simply would not exist without the petrochemical industry?

I think you should boycott big oil. You can start by refusing to type on that keyboard that is made out of petrochemicals.

 

That's the tax code. Write your congressman and have it changed. The long term cost estimates are speculation.

 

So electric vehicles cannot stand on their own but require corporate welfare? Thought you guys were against that.

Also the increase on electric vehicle tax for roads is because they don't pay through gas purchase. Tax, another thing you guys like.

So what's the problem?

 

That is the stupidest post I've seen this month!

 

You're confused. Corporate welfare is corporate benefits that go right to the bottom line, like Walmart workers getting public assistance. Incentives to help important new technologies develop, like the computer and the internet, are different.

I know the right wants to take all government outlay as close to zero as possible except for military, but that is also ridiculous and harmful to people. The success of alternate energy is very important to all of us. Sorry you can't see it, but that is your choice.

 

Well I have some more stupid for you than that-- what do you think is used to generate that electricity the car is running on? How much carbon is released in the production of that electric car? How much carbon is released in the installation and maintenance of the charging stations? How much carbon is involved in the roadways that car will be driving on? You do know that coal ash is used in asphalt and concrete don't you and the former is loaded down with petroleum?

 

Production and use of electric cars plus production of the fuel they use produces less CO2, overall, than production and use of gasoline-powered cars plus the production of the fuel they use.

 

Government is still paying the corporation through the purchase.

 

Subsidizing alternative energy results in reduced economic growth and higher energy prices which acts regressively to reduce the standard of living of the poor. How is that good policy ??

 

Let's be fair. Bottom line - it's an expense to the federal government, and more importantly the taxpayers. No different than the tax credit for solar and wind, which is what we were originally talking about. The only difference is the oil industry, coal industry, auto industry, etc have been enjoying these subsidies for 50+ years. Solar and wind - 8 years.

 

Then we can keep our coal powered electric plants because the electricity they produce to fuel cars is cleaner than the electricity they produce to fuel refineries.

 

Congratulations on your arrival to the state of total denial of reality.

 

Why do you oppose the economy-boosting benefits of a national alternative energy effort that will cut pollution of filthy coal in addition? We are being left behind in using fossil fuels while the rest of the world is taking the lead in technology.

 

No it doesn't. Energy prices are a function of how it is handled. R&D has made wind power cheaper than coal power, and it is doing the same for solar very quickly.

 

Tax payers pay taxes which are used by the gov to pay for services. In the case of solar and wind the gov pays those industries directly to reduce the costs of production. And in the case of solar consumers the gov pays those consumers directly to offset the costs of installing panels on their roofs. That is a big difference and it results in a corruption of the free market for energy.

 

Of course it does. Educate yourself on economics and the gov imposed costs of production both negative and positive.