I have been lectured to no end how great and wonderful electric cars are. OK then they are the same as regular cars. You charge taxes on regular cars and waste those taxes on who knows what. You don't get a tax subsidy to buy a regular car , why should you get one to buy an electric car? What? you think you are fucking special? You are not, You wear out the roads and pollute the environment just like regular cars. 95% of all electricity produced to charge electric cars comes from fossil fuels that are burned and released into the atmosphere. Only difference is it is released into a concentrated area and then spreads out. Fossil fuels are used to make electric cars. Electric cars cant even be made without fossil fuels. Its time to end the free ride and make electric cars sell on their own merits and stop fucking the taxpayer by making them pay for them to even remotely make them a viable option in the free market. If they are so great, people will buy them on their own merits without subsidies. Also all new charging stations should be funded with taxes added to the cost of the electricity that is used to charge the car just like gas.
Its time to tax electric cars just like regular cars
Posts
Total:
15
-->
@sadolite
Good points, it’s just that on the whole, electric cars feel good.
-->
@sadolite
[EV] pollute the environment just like regular cars.
False.
Are electric vehicles greener?The short answer is yes — but their full green potential is still many years away.Experts broadly agree that electric vehicles create a lower carbon footprint over the course of their lifetime than do cars and trucks that use traditional, internal combustion engines.Last year, researchers from the universities of Cambridge, Exeter and Nijmegen in The Netherlands found that in 95% of the world, driving an electric car is better for the environment than driving a gasoline-powered car.Electricity grids in most of the world are still powered by fossil fuels such as coal or oil, and EVs depend on that energy to get charged. Separately, EV battery production remains an energy-intensive process.A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative found that the battery and fuel production for an EV generates higher emissions than the manufacturing of an automobile. But those higher environmental costs are offset by EVs’ superior energy efficiency over time.In short, the total emissions per mile for battery-powered cars are lower than comparable cars with internal combustion engines.“If we are going to take a look at the current situation, in some countries, electric vehicles are better even with the current grid,” Sergey Paltsev, a senior research scientist at the MIT Energy Initiative and one of the study’s authors, told CNBC.Paltsev explained that the full benefits of EVs will be realized only after the electricity sources become renewable, and it might take several decades for that to happen.“Currently, the electric vehicle in the U.S., on average, would emit about 200 grams of CO2 per mile,” he said. “We are projecting that with cleaning up the grid, we can reduce emissions from electric vehicles by 75%, from about 200 (grams) today to about 50 grams of CO2 per mile in 2050.”Similarly, Paltsev said MIT research showed non-plug-in hybrid cars with internal combustion engines currently emit about 275 grams of CO2 per mile. In 2050, their projected emissions are expected to be between 160 to 205 grams of CO2 per mile — the range is wider than EVs, because fuel standards vary from place to place.
Only difference is it is released into a concentrated area and then spreads out.
That's a pretty critical difference when it comes to filtering and capturing as much carbon emission as possible. Concentrating carbon emissions is an important development in decreasing carbon emissions.
Its time to end the free ride and make electric cars sell on their own merits and stop fucking the taxpayer by making them pay for them to even remotely make them a viable option in the free market.
You will have to make the argument that incentivizing upgrades in transportation efficiency amounts to "fucking the taxpayer." Taxpayers subsidize Big Oil to a far greater degree than they subsidize EV, even though increased oil dependency is clearly unsustainable and has been identified as a major security threat to US going forward.
If they are so great, people will buy them on their own merits without subsidies.
That's false for at least until charging infrastructure matches demand.
Also all new charging stations should be funded with taxes added to the cost of the electricity that is used to charge the car just like gas.
Biden's Build Back Better Plan just passed by Congress will build the first generation of charging stations nationwide. This initiative is already paid for by rescinding a small percentage of the tax breaks Trump gave the wealthiest 10% of Americans in 2017.
the tax breaks Trump gave
Democrats are absolute loons over the "tax the rich" rhetoric. Democrats have ALWAYS consistently been the party of the rich. There's absolutely no competition.
SALT is the biggest welfare for the rich scheme since FDR subsidies.
-->
@oromagi
How does any of this justify making taxpayers subsidize electric vehicles? Most of what you say is based on pure conjecture and speculation. "WHEN, IF" They pollute just like regular cars. The fact that they may or may not pollute less is irrelevant. There is no justification for electric cars getting a free ride. If they are so great go buy one and don't take the tax subsidy. Oh wait they cost like $40,000 for the cheapest shit box. I make good money and the most I ever paid for a car or truck is $6000. As if i would waste $40,000 of my hard earned money on some useless shit box that wont serve my needs. I guess I could buy a Tesla truck for $100,000 and take a second mortgage out on my house.
Taxpayers subsidize Big Oil to a far greater degree than they subsidize EV, even though increased oil dependency is clearly unsustainable and has been identified as a major security threat to US going forward.
And this is why Democrats can't be trusted to govern oil production. Because they are an existential security threat by actively lowering domestic oil production. They want to cut the "subsidies" (which are actually lowering the tax to a fair rate that encourages supply instead of the ridiculous scarcity like we have now).
This is the reason for all the laughter and the "wave the wand" rhetoric. Democrats don't want energy independence because the Military Complex lobbies have them all by the balls. They need to fabricate a reason to get back to the Middle East. Destroying domestic energy does exactly that.
Jennifer Granholm is a disgusting DC creature of the Democrat party who doesn't give an actual fuck about Americans outside of DC.
-->
@sadolite
Note Granholm's response when asked what she planned to do to increase US energy production. She laughed and responded as if she had been asked how to bring down prices instead of increase supply and said she has no control over global oil prices. She did not answer the question. And she could have answered the question easily by saying that she would immediately reinstate the Keystone pipeline, allow fracking on federal land, open ANWR, demand that banks increase loans for oil drilling, and allow an increase in exploration and drilling on federal land.
-->
@Greyparrot
What you call a subsidy for oil companies isn't really a subsidy. They get to deduct "THE COST AT THEIR EXSPENSE" of exploration for oil. The govt doesn't just pay them or for their equipment. It's all out of pocket expense up front. The govt is paying 100% of the cost to build any charger infrastructure that it wants built. In addition to bribing people with tax breaks to buy electric cars. Hardly a comparison.
-->
@sadolite
95% of all electricity produced to charge electric cars comes from fossil fuels that are burned and released into the atmosphere. Only difference is it is released into a concentrated area and then spreads out. Fossil fuels are used to make electric cars. Electric cars cant even be made without fossil fuels.
I wonder when someone is going to tell the scientists who’ve spent their whole lives studying this?
-->
@sadolite
It doesn't matter. The existing power grids can't handle the extra load without California style blackouts, so no additional fossil fuels will be actually released.
If you talk to a Democrat about increasing the supply of power, they will laugh at you, and then mumble something about magic wands and skin color.
-->
@Double_R
Who says scientists are studying viability and cost benefit. If they are they can only come to one glaring 800 pound gorilla in the room conclusion.
-->
@sadolite
That has nothing to do with the part of your post I quoted and responded to.
-->
@Double_R
I am responding to your post where you said you wondered who was going to tell scientists who study electric cars all their lives. My response was to insinuate scientists who study electric cars couldn't give a shit about their viability or cost benefit. If they did they would come to the 800 pound gorilla conclusion, that electric cars are not cost beneficial nor viable as a stand alone on its merits product. The free market and consumers don't want electric cars, the govt does. The govt is the electric car markets biggest customer, Not everyday consumers. Without the govt buying them and subsidizing them no one would make them, not even Tesla. In the end govt will mandate electric cars. If you cant afford one or cant find one that serves your needs that's to fucking bad. You can take your needs and freedom to choose a vehicle that serves your needs and is affordable and shove it strait up your ass as far as the govt is concerned.
-->
@sadolite
I wasn’t talking about scientists who study electric cars, I’m talking about scientists who study carbon emissions. Your central claim is that electric cars cause just as big a carbon footprint as gas powered cars. I’m just wondering how you square your belief with the fact that the people who spend their lives studying carbon emissions don’t seem to know this.
-->
@Double_R
There has never been a study that didn't show exactly what the study was intended to show. Fossil fuels are burned to create electricity. Do the burned gasses just disappear? Let me guess Scrubbers get rid of it. Catalytic converters burn unburned hydrocarbons. Both still pollute. Don't tell me electric cars charged with electricity using fossil fuels are green. They are cars that run on coal.