Welcome back to The Morning Dump. I hope you celebrated the 4th of July by hanging out with friends, grilling food, and blowing up a small part of the country. It seems like every municipality, yacht club, and restaurant along the Long Island Sound had their own fireworks show, so by the time we left our party on Friday night, the air was thick with smoke. Was this preparation for next year’s 250th celebration or a preview of the future?
I skipped the politics on Thursday as I wanted to take a few days to consider what the passage of Trump’s big tax/budget bill and the formation of a new political party from Elon Musk all meant. I hoped that lounging by the pool, eating my body weight in smoked meats, and engaging in a luxuriously extended game of Ultimate would lead to some sort of illumination. Unfortunately, my initial instinct has held. This feels very much like giving up, so now it’s on automakers not to cede more control of the future to China. I guess this is where I should mention that we have a day left in 90 days/90 deals, and so far, two deals have been made.
While I’m doing this, I should address the other elephant in the room. Or the anti-elephant? Elon Musk is forming a rival political party, and even longtime Tesla supporters are rolling their eyes. This might be an opportunity for GM, which has quietly picked up a lot of the trust that Tesla has shed.
The Repeal Of The Tax Credit Makes Most New EV And Battery Projects Unnecessary
My goal in doing this today is to cover the news and give you, dear readers, a place to talk constructively about what it all means. I might be wrong! It has been known to happen. As I’ve said many times before, there’s no removing politics from cars. Any major industry is as much a victim of politics as whatever pet social issue you might have (for me, it’s outlawing the Designated Hitter in baseball).
Some of our peers have been critical of this website for being apolitical, but I’d argue that we’re one of the most politically active car websites there is. Specifically, The Autopian has been active in encouraging the repeal of nonsensical anti-import kei laws, up to and including talking to legislators and helping state groups organize. What The Autopian is not, specifically, is partisan. Cars are an enormously powerful way to bring people of different experiences and political viewpoints together, which is something this country needs more of, not less. Can car culture save America? I think it could. If you disagree with me about the politics of the moment, but agree with me about the greatness of Škoda, you are welcome here. Or vice-versa. Honestly, just having an opinion about Škoda means this is probably a place for you.
Enough preamble. I’ve been thinking a lot about post-WWII America. Specifically, how America won the post-war period of rapid technologicalization and industrialization. The first big advantage the United States had, of course, was that most of the country hadn’t been destroyed by war. The huge investments the government made in waging the war went towards the creation of more industrial might, which, after the war, turned back into commercial endeavors. Sensing a need for an educated workforce, the “G.I. Bill” was used by roughly half of the 16 million WWII veterans for some kind of education, including the millions who went to universities.
American cars of the ’50s and early ’60s were feature-laden, big, and many times more powerful than the pre-war cars anyone was building. A lot of this is owed to another piece of legislation, which is historically probably the biggest subsidy for carmakers of all time: The National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956, put forward by President Eisenhower. There are no cars without roads and, specifically, without the broad and (mostly) straight freeways the country built. I don’t want to get too much into geographic determinism, but there’s an alternative version of this where America built more trains instead of highways. Cars were the more obvious option at the time and quickly helped link cities in a way that was beneficial for industry, but it wasn’t a 100% lock that this was what the future would bring.
We got the roads, and then we got the massive land yachts to fill those roads. Having used those interstates in the last month to cross the country, it makes a sort of sense. As much as I love a 1960s Alfa, that’s not the right car for the job.
Unfortunately, this was literally not sustainable. These thirsty cars could not be a future in any country that was dependent on anyone else for cheap fuel. Nor could these vehicles be a future for any country that didn’t want its children choking on smog. The 1-2 punch of OPEC oil embargoes and environmental regulation to combat pollution led to the Malaise Era of cars. American automakers didn’t have a good plan for this particular future, and the government had to intervene. Japanese companies like Toyota and Honda were the ones who benefited, having created cars that were both smaller and more efficient.
A lot has happened between the Malaise Era and today, with American car companies yet again building bigger and thirstier vehicles, only to retreat to cars that were still big, but also a lot more efficient. Somewhere in there, a combination of the California Air Resources Board and a few government programs led, in fits and starts, to a genuine attempt at making an electric car. The company that took a big chunk of that money and was successful was, of course, Tesla. While a lot of what Tesla was able to accomplish is due to the genius of the various people involved in the project, it didn’t hurt that the government helped fund the project both through direct loans from the Department of Energy and climate credits. Whatever your politics, it’s hard to deny that Tesla’s creation is an example of what happens when American ingenuity is supported.
At the same time, China has, in its own way, pushed towards electrification. It’s been messy, and China’s massive overcapacity is a problem, but the country now controls the battery manufacturing, technology, and resources necessary to build electric cars.
President Biden, with the Inflation Reduction Act and other actions, pushed forward the idea that America should be the place where this kind of innovation and vehicle production happens. There was a mix of carrots (the IRA $7,500 tax credit, massive loans for new battery plants) and sticks (CARB climate credits, stricter emissions standards). Could it have worked? We’ll probably never really know.
With the passage of the combined budget/tax bill, many of those credits are going away. As CBS News reports:
The massive tax and spending cut bill that Congress passed Thursday ends federal tax incentives for electric vehicles.
Buyers have until Sept. 30 to qualify for the federal tax credits on EVs before they are terminated. But experts say there are still strong financial reasons to consider buying the vehicles even without those incentives.
Before the bill passed, new electric vehicles came with a $7,500 federal tax credit, and used EVs included up to $4,000. Those incentives were originally designed to help make the vehicles more affordable.
The counterargument to this is that America shouldn’t be picking one technology over the other. That automakers used this incentive to build expensive EV crossovers instead of smaller, more affordable cars. My response to this is, again, to look at Tesla. The company probably only exists because of these initial programs, and much of its profits have come from climate credits. Building an entirely new industry takes time, especially when so much of what you need to make these cars relies on a government we’re not always the friendliest with right now. As Patrick George wrote in his big piece on this over at InsideEVs:
The lithium-ion battery was born here. But outsourcing them, and all kinds of other consumer goods, has led China to become less of the world’s on-demand contract factory and more of a giant science lab that’s run away with this technology. And it’s not just batteries themselves but the entire supply chain of materials to make them; as the Financial Times reported in April, the U.S. relies on China for 70% of the rare earth compounds and metals it imports, and then companies like Apple and others source directly from there.
Besides the risks of getting a key piece of consumer tech from only one place—a lesson Americans learned the hard way during the semiconductor shortage of the pandemic—there’s the obvious problem of leaving the power source of the future in the hands of a country with which the U.S. has difficult relations on a good day. (Not many people in America would seriously suggest that this country import all of its petroleum from Venezuela, Iran, and Russia.)
I’m not one of those people who believe that, even if the credit stayed in place, consumers would all immediately run out and grab a new EV. That was a belief that led to too much hype and, combined with low interest rates and SPACs, probably set the industry back. I do believe, though, that most cars will be electrified in the future, with a mix of hybrids and EREVs, as well as pure BEVs.
Whether you like it or not, batteries are the future of automobiles. Consumers like the performance and efficiency of electric cars, even if they don’t currently like the price. If it is the future, then ceding that future to anyone else isn’t good for the country. President Trump’s own stated goal is to improve American manufacturing, but this is the opposite of what’s likely to happen. While more carmaking is probably coming (thanks in part to tariffs), less of it is going to be the advanced kind of manufacturing that a switchover to electric cars was likely to bring, at least according to a study from Princeton University’s REPEAT Project:
If clean vehicle tax credits are repealed, as much as 100% of planned construction and expansion of US EV assembly and half of existing capacity could be at risk of cancellation or closure. If the share of EVs manufactured in the US remains at 2024 levels, nearly three-quarters of planned projects would be unnecessary.
Currently planned construction of US battery cell manufacturing demand already exceeds requirements to supply electric vehicles assembled in the United States under a continuation of current policies.
I assume there will be a big boom in electric car purchases this quarter as companies do all they can to shove the EVs they’ve built, or are planning to build, out to market while the cars are this much cheaper. After that, I’m guessing the curve is going to flatten a lot, meaning that all these planned facilities are, as the study above points out, kind of pointless.
My feeling is that this is America’s government giving up on the future, or assuming the future will all be ICE-powered cars and a few hybrids. It’s possible that’s true, but I don’t think so. If this all feels like a major setback to you, all is not lost. There’s still hope, but it’s going to be up to American industry and American automakers to counter it.
What does that look like? There’s Slate Auto, which looked like a great alternative to traditional manufacturing, but that took a giant hit with the passage of this legislation. Hopefully, Rivian can hold on long enough to build its smaller and more affordable vehicles. General Motors has reached a sort of profitability with its electric vehicles, though how that holds up without the tax credit isn’t clear. I’m excited about Ford’s skunkworks EV project, which hopefully exists outside of the need for the $7,500 tax credit.
The fact is that the federal government has taken a step backward both in requiring more efficient vehicles and in funding the creation of them. This means that companies will have to decide how much it’s worth it to do it with fewer carrots and fewer sticks.
’90 Deals In 90 Days’ Has One Day To Make 88 Deals
By my math, President Trump’s promise to do 90 deals in 90 days has about a day left, and only two deals have been done. The first was the United Kingdom trade deal, and the second is one with Vietnam. This is a big one, as the United States has long favored the country as a friendlier alternative to China, although Chinese manufacturers have used Vietnam’s special status to try to pass goods through to the United States at a lower cost.
The way it works is that there’s now a 20% tariff on goods from Vietnam and a 40% tariff on any trans-shipments that pass through the country. What does the United States get?
Vietnam would also provide the United States with more market access, with US exports to the country facing no tariffs, Trump said. That agreement appears to include US exporters of large-engine cars, according to Trump and Vietnamese state media.
“It is my Great Honor to announce that I have just made a Trade Deal with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,” Trump said on Truth Social.
“It is my opinion that the SUV or, as it is sometimes referred to, Large Engine Vehicle, which does so well in the United States, will be a wonderful addition to the various product lines within Vietnam,” Trump said.
No one in this country refers to SUVs as “Large Engine Vehicles,” but I have a sense of where that’s coming from. There’s been an ongoing threat from China against European automakers focused on vehicles with large engines, so perhaps that’s what he’s talking about?
Elon Musk Starts A Third Party, Making Trump And Tesla Investors Unhappy
The once glowing partnership between President Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk spectacularly blew up last month, and now it’s again in the news as President Trump took to his social media platform to blast Musk’s creation of a third party (the American Party), and Musk responded on his own social media platform by mocking the President via retweet.
Like a landmine covered in armadillo crap, I ain’t touching that. My advice to you is simply: Walk away.
That’s not possible for Tesla investors, however, as Tesla investors have been begging Musk to get back to work and, to some of them, this does not feel like getting back to work. As one investor told Bloomberg:
Devoting resources and attention to a new political party runs counter to what Musk told Tesla investors during the company’s last earnings, in April — that he’d allocate “far more” of his time to the company after his work for the Trump administration ended.
“The board is going to have to get involved,” Dan Ives, an equity analyst at Wedbush Securities, told Bloomberg Television, saying he was frustrated as a supporter of Tesla. “There’s a line in the sand that he’s now starting to cross.”
Um, this is the line in the sand? How big is this freakin’ beach?
GM Is Ready To Pick Up Tesla Customers
I assume there will be a large run on Tesla products in the coming months as consumers, at least the ones disinterested in politics, recognize that the Model Y is still an enormous bargain for what you get. Could some of those consumers maybe be looking to buy a General Motors product? Maybe!
GM has been building market share in electric cars while Tesla has been shedding it, as the Detroit Free Press points out:
The Detroit automaker accelerated electric vehicle sales and market share in the first half of the year thanks to expanded electric offerings across three of its four brands. Meanwhile, consumer sentiment for Texas-based rival Tesla cratered this spring due to criticism over Musk’s hands-on involvement in Washington politics.
“GM is quietly building trust while Elon burns it,” said Paul Waatti, director of industry analysis for AutoPacific. “Consumers are responding to consistency, not volatility, and GM’s steady hand is starting to pay dividends.”
Now is a great time to buy a base Equinox EV is all I’m saying.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
I’ll probably end up doing every song from this album, but “Good Feelings” from Violent Femmes is a chill Monday vibe that I need.
The Big Question
Am I wrong? This is a long post. I might be wrong a lot! What do you think?
Top photo: Leffler, Warren K. / Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division
Yes, you are completely wrong. Long Island sound was actually pretty tame for this 4th. I remember years of past where you would have a wall of non stop explosions for miles upon miles of coastline until at least 2am. Even when the 4th fell on a weeknight. This year mostly everything was muted by 11pm. And that was some pretty perfect weather we had this past weekend.
I noticed the same here in SW Florida. Usually the 4th is crazy in my neighborhood, but this year not at all.
Eastern NC was more active than usual. I was in my boat in the Pamlico River to see my city’s fireworks, and fireworks were visible in every direction.
I’ve been wondering the last few years if Fireworks are antiquated and should be put out to the pasture. They’re loud, scare pets, can set be dangerous for fires, etc, etc.
Then every year I keep bringing a package of them over to the family BBQ and enjoy setting them off with my seemingly dozens of nieces and nephews, and watching their joyful glee, the same glee I’m sure I experienced as a young one myself. I can’t help but feel immensely joyful and proud to be an American when I see that, and my tolerance for Fireworks and “safety concerns” be damned…for one more year.
I for one am upset that big-firework hasn’t innovated in decades. If anything our M80’s and mortar shells have only grown in size physically while going way back in both performance and in boom-efficiency. If they don’t step up their game the foreign competitors are going to eat their lunch.
(oh, wait)
Fireworks shows in Japan are far better than any I’ve seen here. Osaka Tenjin Matsuri was amazing.
I personally think Trump’s ‘tweet’ about Musk going “off the rails” should’ve concluded with a warm welcome.
I am old enough to have seen the remarkable advances in automobiles over the last 1/2 century and have heard old men bitching about it the whole time. I was behind first gen chevy nova yesterday and it stunk. The smell of un/partially burnt fuel. The lack of headrests, airbags, real brakes, seatbelts, rolling on god know what kind of tires. I do not want to go back. The fast, well handling safe cars we have today would not exist without Gov regulations. people complained about OBD, seatbelts, Fuel injection, ABS, traction control, emissions all of it. I like breathing air and would like to continue to. People forget the air pollution now that it has been gone for a while.
The gov supported the oil and gas and car companies for a century + to get ICE cars where they are. Time to keep making things better.
That Nova probably had the “Car Show” tune, which means adjust the low speed jets rich enough to give a fake lumpy cam idle. It seems that every old car of the muscle junk era is set up like this. I mean, there can’t be that many completely clueless people tweaking on carbs, right?
I happened upon a local showing of 60’s lowriders a few months ago and I was shocked, SHOCKED when they started up and I didn’t smell a thing! So stink less classics CAN be done.
Good to know. I am actually a bit fond of old jeep smell, but that is more than just exhaust smell.
“ The lack of headrests, airbags, real brakes, seatbelts, rolling on god know what kind of tires. I do not want to go back.”
I’m with you on that. Plus engine cooling, HVAC systems and the fuel economy were dreadful compared to modern vehicles. I recall with some old cars, in hot weather you had to turn on the heat “to keep it from boiling over”… and that was even with the cooling system in good shape.
And I recall old men complaining about new tech… particularly the anti-fuel injection sentiment in the 1980s.
I was on the other side of the fence there… wanted nothing to do with any car with carbs because I saw first hand how much they sucked compared to fuel injection.
Was told by an old retired-mechanic family friend that my first car (a manual 1990 Ford Festiva) was a poor choice because the parts were a bit more expensive than a slushbox-equipped Chevy Impala from the 1970s that they thought I should have bought.
Of course for the amount of driving I did, all the extra money I would have had to spend on fuel would have blown away any savings on parts many times over.
Plus I wanted something that was entertaining to drive.
“People forget the air pollution now that it has been gone for a while.”
I remember. Over the past decade even in the Toronto area, smog days have gotten fewer due to better emissions controls, an emissions clampdown on diesels and fewer of those old high polluting vehicles being used regularly.
Yeah when I drive behind old cars, I can really smell the difference.
If I had the money to burn, I’d get one of those big luxury cars from the 1970s and swap in the powertrain from a modern BEV.
Well written. I have owned several cars I needed to run the heat of full blast on hot days. I would never want to do that again.
I know exactly the smell you’re talking about and do miss it in small doses. To me it was going to auctions as a teenager to see if I can snag an OK-ish ride as my first car. Completely different from that is the smell I like that you get at a race track now. They both are intense, but I don’t feel like I might die the next morning despite 30X more fuel having been consumed.
The part about China is fascinating. The oil parallel is a good one, I can see why we wouldn’t want to depend on them for something so important. So a shift back to ICE engines (especially large ones built for American roads) feels like a symbolic step towards economic security and a step away from relying on one of the largest human rights abusers in the world. Biden’s approach made way more sense than this, though.
I won’t assume malice where incompetence will do (even if though it feels good). I think this is the result of a government of people trying to make changes at maximum impact and speed without much actual expertise or experience in (or maybe interest in learning) car stuff. This is giving up, and then saying you left because you were done.
Since fear rules the day, power is more attractive than creativity. It feels more powerful to say “fix it” than to think of ways to fix it.
If there’s one thing I’m certain of, it’s that American consumers will flock towards whoever provides the cheapest product, regardless of badge. See: Honda and Toyota battling the big 3 in the 70s and 80s, now they’re everywhere. The same thing is going to happen with Chinese marques, because we’ve outsourced everything to them and taught them all we know.
I’ve spent 2 decades designing products for American companies; Mercury Marine, Harley Davidson, Milwaukee Tool, Bosch, Kimberly Clark, SC Johnson, Ariens, John Deere, Fiskars, Schick, Bunn Brewing, list goes on and on and on. And every single company was full of overpaid executives who were oh so willing and happy to shift production to China.
I have friends there; I’ve worked closely with them for almost a decade, they are good people… but we shared EVERYTHING. Now they know all the ways we do things; just go look at the power tools Harbor Freight is putting out. No longer jokes, they have some premium features and construction. As good as Milwaukee? No, but less than half the price.
I don’t know what hte Big 3 could possibly do to stay competitive. I have no idea how they are supposed to compete with a country willing to use child/slave labor that has no regulation on environmental pollution.
There’s a lot less incentive for me to “buy American” when both Milwaukee and Hercules are made outside the US.
I am usually okay to pay the Made in USA upcharge but when there isn’t a viable option, I’m buying on price/value.
Funny thing is I go with Hercules at home but Milwaukee at work (since I am not paying for it) but found out my cousin’s boyfriend works at Milwaukee so he might be able to get me decent discounts on them so might go with them in the future. But yeah I cannot see spending almost double the price for something I will use only once in a while.
This is my take as well, all my tools are cheap, and I don’t expect that to ever affect me as a DIYer. I can imagine myself breaking cheapo sockets or burning out the brushes on my cheap drill if I was a professional doing 10+ maintenance jobs a day, but I’m not, and I have no shame for saving my money. I know plenty of people who have complete Snap-On chests for regular at-home car maintenance, and I don’t think they’re any different from the people that wear Gucci slippers at home.
If the current administration had its way the U.S. would reduce its standards to the point where labor was as cheap here as it is in China.
BTW, the U.S. has more of its people who can legally be counted as slaves than any other country in the world. It is what happens when you incarcerate more of your population than any other by far, and also have it in your constitution that those people can still be used as slaves.
That’s not true. North Korea is the world leader at 104.6 slaves/1000 population.
https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/map/
The US has 3.3 slaves/1000 population.
By the metrics you used, which I think seem fine, it still only puts China at 4/1000 and the U.S. at 3/1000. The U.S. incarcerates 541/100k, and China’s rate is 119/100k.
The point is that the idea that everything in China is made with slave labor and the U.S. is a free country is simply silly, especially with an administration that fundraises off building concentration camps where prisoners could be eaten by alligators.
If outrage at slavery is your thing I suggest you focus on India.
With a population of 1.4B and a prevalence of 8 slaves per 1000 people India is the world leader in slaves, over twice as many both absolute and per capita as China:
https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studies/india/
I don’t disagree. It’s just the idea that China is somehow orders of magnitude worse is mainly based on xenophobic propaganda being used to rile up a poorly informed and largely racist set of constituents.
Totally agree. In fact up till a few years ago China was 3.3/1000, just like the US.
Respectfully, I think it’s entirely fair to be outraged at one’s own country when the metric is anything greater than 0.0/1000.
No argument. Even those damned Swiss have slaves.
90 deals in 90 days, eh?
Well that seems to track….
Sort of like our “better than Obama” new health care system coming in 2 weeks.
What?
Did I miss something.
Screw those two. mouth breathing turds. YMMV as always.
If the Big 3 are smart, they’ll keep moving forward in the direction they’ve started. No matter what the orangutan or the muskrat want to do, these are global car corporations and the rest of the world is moving to EV.
The big 3 being that smart… surely you jest! Be nice if they do, but the garlicky breath of all street will be all over their necks to pivot asap.
Selfishly, I’m curious what the end of EV mandates will mean for the future used EV market. I see my family needing a good used car in about 3 years, and would love to get another EV. But by that time, will used EVs be relatively more expensive because of the lack of tax credit at purchase (and thus higher initial outlay)? Or will they be a relative bargain because the lack of the tax credit will stifle demand? Anyone with much more economics training than I care to take a guess?
I’ve not tried to buy one, so maybe the price would drop, but whenever I’ve checked used EV prices, especially the “cheap” ones like a Bolt, the dealers seem to have the $4k rebate baked in already like they are artificially marked up. Seems to be less prevalent if you look at a $30-40k Mach E or something instead.
I don’t even like getting political here but wanted to state that no third party comments ticked me off. (No I don’t support Musk party he is starting).
I think he meant more so stay from Musk’s party. Maybe he was trying to warn us that we shouldn’t get involved with either (the muskivites, or the republicants) because neither is actually about making things better- they’re just trying to win.
I’ve been hoping for theirs party for a long time, but this is not what I wanted. I hope that he’ll disrupt the norms enough that an actually useful third party comes up. Honestly, I don’t mind a third conservative party if it inspires a forth progressive party, that will actually fight this fool.
Oh his comment literally says the system is not build for a third (or more) parties and that it would lead to chaos. To me the two party system just leads the the same old crap we are always stuck in. Then again career politicians do not help either but that is a different topic.
I didn’t know he (I’m assuming you mean trump) said that, that’s interesting. Isn’t our government modeled after parliaments in Europe where there’s often way more than two parties? There are known and studied ways to create coalition governments. I think the real reason we only have two parties is that it’s easier to know who to corrupt or lobby to get your agenda across. The oligarchs prefer to keep things simple.
I’m also not sure that all Americans feel this way. I’m sure there are plenty of people who just want a simple choice, A or B. Maybe this talk of a third party wouldn’t happen if the democrats were a stronger, more party.
Still, I think it’s time to have a multiparty system, simply because this is what a two party system has gotten us. If you keep crapping your pants it’s time to change your diet.
Yeah I think our two party system is a creation of the media, the money backing them and yeah I think people having more then 2 choices scares some.
Media as we know it came way after the two party system
I’d love a proper historian to chime in and give us the actual answer, but I was under the impression that when the US was founded they were explicitly against a 2 party system and that only really took hold after the civil war.
What ticked you off? It’s probably the only thing I’ve read from the Cheeto that I agree with. I don’t like it, but the US gov’t is not set up to have more than two parties in a winner take all voting style.
As I said above it just puts everybody on the mindset of the either need to vote blue or red there is no other way. So you just have constant recycling of voting for the same people over and over again because they will constantly tell you the other side is bad for xyz and you need to vote for us. Also the views from the parties I doubt 100% align with whom ever is voting for them. I know for me I support and don’t support things from both sides.
The two-party issue is inherent in our system, and it won’t change unless the system does. A bit of a catch-22 for sure. But the places that have made progress with things like ranked-choice voting tend to be progressive urban areas. Without gerrymandering and a system that is massively weighted to favor conservative voters in states like Wyoming, the chances of systemic change would be higher.
Oh gerrymandering is awful on both sides being from Illinois around Chicago (look up Illinois 4th district) but I agree nothing will change without a total restructure of our current system as others have stated in here a good way to start would be some term limits for once for representatives, senators and even governors.
There are two main pathways to that change. One is progressively moving forward in small steps using constant pressure. The other is to simply blow it up and hope something better forms out of the chaos.
The second option is a fool’s hope, but it is relatively easy to kick off. The second is slow, painful, and requires constant effort and compromise. A significant part of that compromise is voting for the imperfect option if it is the better of the two viable alternatives until the system can be changed enough to give us another option.
Unfortunately, right now we are experiencing what happens with the second option. The one with almost zero chance of the result being better than the starting point.
Yeah and funny thing is the current chaos situation will just lead back into what the hell is a Dick Durbin and why has he been a representative/senator for longer then I been alive? (I partially joke) But yeah I have a feeling this current bullshit is what the media wants (it gets them clicks look how many comments are already on this article) and then the parties want it because to will get them re-elected for the for the 10th+ time because as I said above that is all it is with these two parties vote for us because the other side doesn’t want you to do/have (insert whatever topic here)
I don’t think the current chaos helps anyone but those loyal to Trump. The old-guard GOP politicians are all getting out and being replaced with extremists who support Trump. The old-guard Dems are more at risk as well as their supporters get sick of them rolling over and being afraid to call the fascists fascists.
The chaos is part of the grift. If everything is collapsing, it is easier to hide bad behavior. And as long as people are content to blame “both sides,” and chase the cultural boogeymen like rounding up brown people and hating the LGBTQIA+ community, they get away with whatever they want to do.
The feckless nature of politicians over the years is a direct reflection of the “both sides” mentality of so many people.
That’s the other major uphill climb. The people with the voices or power to make the change are disincentivized from actually changing the status quo.
Clicks and attention = money and votes; regardless of how you get that attention
If we had more than two parties, the country would survive.
In the past, third parties and their one narcissistic presidential candidate think that the presidency is the only office worth running for.
What Musk is planning (allegedly) is to take over a dozen seats and make majorities in Congress impossible without his party’s approval. That’s power. That’s chaos. That worries the baby-in-chief and his minions, who prefer to run the country off a cliff for their own benefit without anyone’s permission.
An even better idea would be to take over a state and its Electors so that the President cannot earn a majority of the Electoral college. Maybe Texas is ready to be that spoiler.
Are we gonna also stop giving tax breaks to trucks and SUV’s?
There was an excellent British comedian by the name of Sean Lock. He died a few years ago, unfortunately, but he was consistently clever and had an interesting way of looking at things.
When the UK was considering Brexit, he put forth the following (serious) opinion: no one over the age of 65 should be allowed to vote on it, because “it’s not their future”.
I think about that viewpoint sometimes, and thought about it again reading today’s TMD. Actually what came to mind was “Can’t we consistently elect someone under the age of 60 to the Oval Office??”. Evidence appears to suggest that no, we can’t, but I think that would be helpful for a number of reasons. Chief among these is the potentially greater likelihood of that individual taking more of an interest in the future, even if it’s for purely selfish reasons. Maybe just the thought of being criticized – while still alive – for terrible decisions would encourage a sitting president to make fewer terrible decisions.
Maybe not.
It’s not just the oval office, but all of congress too. We have the third oldest congress in our nation’s history, it’s painfully obvious. Fearful of new technology and definitely not thinking long term on anything
Corporate doesn’t think long term either.
“Next quarter bro, next quarter is all that matters” is what got us here.
Oh yeah, Jack Welch ruined our industries with that crappy “next quarter” nonsense in the 80’s. Anyone who wants to get government to think like a corporation, well here it is. No long term planning of anything and wasting money on vanity projects
I love this. Government is not a Company.
I’m pretty sure there’s an episode of Sliders about this
Whoa, I don’t think I’ve thought about that show in decades. Kind of want to find that one and watch it + maybe a few others now.
One of the saddest facts I have seen: Obama is still the only US president born after 1946.
That’s insane. We’ll get another president born after 1950 in 10 years at this rate.
Holy crap. My parents were born before 1946, both alive and awesome, thank you, but I also don’t want them in charge of major political decisions … sorry Mom.
You want younger blood in government? Non-partisan suggestion: strongly promote term limits, especially for congress – three terms (six years) for representatives, two terms (twelve years) for senators. This would be a no-brainer improvement for our republic.
I say everyone only votes from now on for people who are pro-term limits. (One could wish haha)
Agreed.
You might get an opportunity with JD and his sofa. He’s what, about 40 now? Gonna be the greatest decade you’ve ever seen /s.
Make Naugahyde Great Again.
The problem with that POV is that these days, there is still quite a lot of future ahead of a 65 year old. I know that for people in their 30s and even 40s they view those aging as sort of standing in their way, whether it’s holding onto jobs and blocking the younger from attaining that promotion they desire, or political progress they seek they feel the older generation should be stepping aside for them.
To me this represents a rather stark example of a huge lack of empathy. An entire generation (or multiple generations) of people can’t see that you aren’t actually dead once you get to 60. I wonder if they will reflect on that at all when they get into their mid-late 50s because there is a lot of life left to live in 60s and 70s and what the government does and how society shifts might even affect the older generations more.
It’s very interesting to me and your story about Sean Lock is quite typical of that viewpoint. As someone in their early 50s it also hits in a strange way. At first I could really see the point but when you think about it (or maybe just me) it really isn’t true at all.
It’s not even these days. I’m not an old man yelling at a cloud although some days I might be, but my 21-year-old and 17 year old look at people of my mid-50s ages being like really old and out of touch with a lot of things. But we have seen a lot of things. And we’re not lacking knowledge of things that happened before our time. I work in technology, and it’s amazing how the younger generations don’t pay attention to the past. I also feel like people of my own generation don’t pay attention in the past either
I do feel like the younger crowd pays attention to the past less than any previous generation but also wonder if every older generation feels that.
If it’s true I’m sure we are doomed to start repeating all the mistakes of the past. God help us.
I can completely agree with the take. I live in a town (been here 28 years) that is considered a “starter community” as far as real estate goes. Lots of new buyers are not voting about issues that are long-term
The worst part about the big beautiful bill’s effect on the auto industry is that it runs counter to everything Trump claims to be in favor of. We had industrial and environmental planning in place that was going to improve our ability to compete with China, bring manufacturing supply chains back to North America, create jobs and give us cleaner and better vehicles. Now we have broken promises, abandoned projects, and no plan except give petro-oligarchs more money. The BBB should be called the Big Ugly. It makes me mad and sad in equal parts.
And somehow it will still be the Democrat’s fault.
Don’t most of the changes kick in after the mid-terms, just in time to blame the Democrats who historically are likely to take control of at least one house of Congress? Trump already blamed Biden when the stock market took a dive earlier this year based on Trump’s tariffs.
And no one beside Democrats will notice due to blind faith.
Had an argument with A guy down at the Elks the other day and he is blaming of this bad crap on Democrats and despite saying that like you guys have the presidency, the Senate and House you’re still blaming other people. So fucking ridiculous. I can’t even stand it.
Half of the things out of Trump’s mouth are counter to what he claims to be in favor of. The lack of consistency is giving us all whiplash.
Half is an extremely optimistic estimate. The amount of hypocrisy coming out of the White House these days is very close to 100%.
Yeah, hypocricy and vileness are the few constants we do have from this administration.
The only thing trump is in favor of is enriching himself and his family and pumping his socials. The party and the republic are vehicles for this.
Using my eyeball mk.1 counting device on the roads here in Quebec, the Tesla sales have definitely gone to GM, especially the Equinox.
If our Fearless Leader doesn’t stop dicking around in the Middle East and ever wakes up and realizes that yes, providing funding for FEMA is essential, gas prices are going to skyrocket, and before you know it, demand for EVs/hybrids is consequently going to skyrocket yet again.
I think domestic manufacturers know this, too, hence all of the xenophobic rhetoric about an “invasion” of Chinese cars. The one thing you don’t want the American people to have is freedom of choice, especially when they could theoretically choose to buy a cheap vehicle they don’t have to spend 7 years paying off.
I’m just waiting for the FEMA thing to be called out. At some point, someone in the red states are going to need money, and it will gleefully flow out of FEMA. Immediately after, some blue state will need money, and there will be no assistance. And, we will need to call out FEMA on this. This is a canary to me.
I will be curious to see how Greg Abbott responds to all the flooding. Shouldn’t the NOAA have been on top of this? FEMA probably won’t be a whole lot of the equation because the current administration wants the states to take care of it.
Lots of disinformation and wild finger pointing out there, which is consistent with disasters. As far as I can glean from reputable news sources, the NWS office in San Antonio did an excellent job with timely warnings. The problem lay at the Kerr County level, where despite being flush with the knowledge that the county lies within, according a recent quote from the county judge, “the most dangerous river valley in the United States,” the decision was made in 2016 by the county commissioners and county judge to not install a flood alert system, which would have included the numerous summer camps. The system proposed was much like the one nearby Comal County (New Braunfels) had earlier installed. The price for Kerr County was nine hundred some odd thousand dollars and would’ve been fully funded by the feds through a grant via the then current administration. It was variously opined by officials during county meetings that the sirens would be annoying, that the locals would know what to do and call/text each other so the alerts would only be useful for tourists and “crazy Houston people,” and there was concern voiced that the grant money to fund the system would come from the (gasp!) Obama administration.
I have spent a good amount of time in states that some like to criticize for various reasons, specifically Mississippi, Louisiana, and California, but I grew up in Texas and my opinion is this: there is no group of more ornery people, and that is not a compliment.
Wow. Nothing like good old-fashioned tribalism. That is quite a story
This administration has utter contempt for anyone making less than $250k a year at minimum, regardless of politics. Whether the state that needs the money is red or blue, the only way FEMA is dispersing anything is if a billionaire is somehow affected.
With the Clean Air Act, the feds simply said “you’re going to do this”. No incentives for buyers, no subsidies for manufacturers, no payments to anyone at all. That’s entirely different from what’s going on with EV today.
But the clean air act amendments of 1990 used a market-based cap and trade program to reduce the sulfur dioxide pollution that was causing acid rain and that actually worked really really well. We should do the same thing for Carbon.
Elon getting back to work gives us things like the Cybertruck, self driving taxis that don’t work properly (and need a human overseer that for some bizarre reason rides shotgun?), and other silly things like flame throwers and underground tunnels whose novelty greatly exceeds their usefulness (and the novelty wore off pretty quickly).
I think his companies do better when he lets the experienced and talented people dumb enough to work for him do their thing, at least until they have a bad day and he cans them.
How he gets people to invest in his crackpot ideas, I have no idea. Things seem to start pretty well (teething problems not withstanding), but then he cranks things well past 11 and far into the realm of crazy (because the tech isn’t there, and it isn’t going to get there anywhere close to when he promises it).
Remember these gems? “Your Tesla will pay for itself.” “Going to Mars in 4 years.” “The end of private car ownership.”
And yet investors still seem to love the guy’s ideas. I don’t get it.
Unearned confidence and a black T-shirt will get you far.
Apparently grey hoodies will work, too.
Having 90 days to do 90 deals then doing 88 of them in 1 day is similar to the approach I took to many projects in college.
If it wasn’t for the last minute, I would never get anything done!
Hey, if you wait until the last minute, it only takes a minute!
The United States could counter China’s attempt to strong-arm us or the rest of the world through rare-earth elements. We just need the mining companies and environmentalists to work out the methods of extraction, and a political consensus that we don’t want our economy to be at the mercy of Beijing. But NIMBY…
Yeah hard to compete with China on that front when they are in a idgaf mood about the environment and the US on the other hand tries to not completely decimate the environment as bad as we used to.
Of course, China and the U.S. are trending in opposite directions relative to environmental protections. China has recognized the negative impacts of an ‘IDGAF’ attitude and is working to effect change. The U.S. has the memory of a fruit fly and is eliminating protections while selling extraction rights to the foreign corporation that writes the largest check to the president.
Does China care about the environment? A quick search shows they built a record number of coal plants last year
Even with the coal plants China’s carbon dioxide emissions per capita (which is the only equitable way to measure them) are several times higher than those of the US, its northern suburbs, Australia and the Gulf states, and it’s even arguable that emissions generated by manufacturing should be assessed against the countries consuming the products made.
And the administration would like to make that happen here. There is no doubt that this administration despises the natural world and all current protections. It just hasn’t yet had time to implement everything to make the U.S. worse than China.
China’s per capita CO2 is 190% of the global average. The U.S. is 293%. Between 2000 and 2023, China’s situation has gotten worse, and the U.S.’s situation has improved, but the policies that caused those shifts are no longer in place. China wants to improve, and the U.S. overtly wants to get worse. The current administration runs on spite and bribes.
It’s all Biden and Obamas fault and the election was stolen. Repeat this mantra and you too shall become rich. May I have your credit card number please.
Biden, Obama, along with brown and trans people. Keep on that message and send out Christmas cards werhe the entire family is sitting around the tree holding ARs and you will get at least 50% support in the U.S.
What you suggest is not possible because extraction can’t be done in a way that is environmentally responsible and economically viable. Also, those materials are not equally distributed and are far rarer in the U.S. than in China. By the time you extracted the materials in a responsible way, it would be more expensive than buying them elsewhere, even with the tariffs.
Besides, the idea that China is a massive threat, MAGA wants you to believe, is mostly an xenophobic illusion. They want the money paid for the material as much as we do the material. But the big thing is that countries with strong trade ties are less likely to engage in military conflicts that impact those ties. More trade with China is far better than less trade with China.
Is this the ghost of Nixon or a Chinese bot?
Is that a way of changing the topic?
Are you wrong?
Maybe.
Or maybe not?
Exactly.
Nope. He’s right. Either innovate and keep up with the competition, or fall behind. My prediction still stands, the domestics will be so behind after 4 years after being given the OK by Trump to build the same old, same old, they’re going to need another bail-out.
I’m thinking that maybe in a few years at least all of the domestic Stellantis brands could be spun off in a new company that just makes one basic, same old cheap car for the people. Ford and GM could join as well if they give up on innovation. They could call the new conglomerate Trabant, and just make the same old vehicle for decades.
Fresh for 2007… I mean 2027: The Trabant Journey 🙂
Maybe instead of overstocked crappy cotton we can use corn silk or husks instead. Keep the ethanol and corn subsidies nice and high
Or maybe by ‘build the same old, same ol,’ they will finally get most of the bugs worked out and cut down on recalls…one can only hope.
It’s possible.
The “Large Engine Vehicle” thing is Peak Trump. Come up with a bullshit fake term, claim “oh yeah, everybody calls them that” and see how many of your brainless drooling acolytes take the bait. The sad thing is that in six months Ford will be calling them “LEVs” or something to avoid whatever fuckery he cares to conjure up against anybody who doesn’t play along.
In case anyone still thinks it would somehow be good for corporations to be in charge of the country, the fact that they’re all bending the knee to someone who is actively harming them just to protect their short-term bottom line should dispel any such delusions. Not that it will, sadly.
Appears to be working.
Yup
Too be fair, apparently it’s what a large displacement vehicle is called under Vietnamese tax code. Which literally no one would know outside of Vietnam would know. Which makes it still dumb and not-as-creative attempt at renaming SUVs.
Thanks for the thoughtful write-up. I don’t agree with all of it, but it is a fair jumping-off point.
Tesla was in trouble regardless of the EV credit. They can’t seem to develop new products, and the meme level status of the stock is a Sword of Damocles always threatening to drop.
ICE, BEV, Hybrid, PHEV, EREV, or whatever isn’t the core issue. It is mandating a specific design rather than results. If we wanted to minimize the environmental impact of transportation while maximizing economic growth, we would charge for the environmental impact of using/producing energy based on its impact. Extractive industries get charged accordingly, as would the importation or use of imported energy. Right now, hybrids and PHEVs would likely be the least expensive since they tend to have the lowest impact, but as battery tech improves, BEVs would move into the lead. It also encourages people to find the solution that best suits their needs.
Trump and Musk are clearly narcissistic sociopaths. They both make up stories they expect people to take as gospel, despite being clearly false. Both are insulated by gaggles of people who so much want what they hear to be true that they are willing to forgo all critical reasoning. The idea that their vile behavior and beliefs might result in taking actions that weaken each other is at least a small sliver of hope.
American car makers have never really been competitive anywhere other than the U.S., which is why the protectionism appeals to so many folks. It isn’t like a trade war will result in lower exports for them. It just means everything gets more expensive to consumers, and we know corporate leaders and Trump don’t consider regular consumers to be worthy of consideration.
I see a sort of movement with Chinese EV’s as we did with Japanese cars back in the 70’s and 80’s.
Let me explain.
American manufacturers had the corner on the American market until the oil crisis and the Malaise era. Though we tried to make it harder for the foreign brands to do business here, they still succeeded. Why? They had a superior product. They figured out how to get around the red tape (like building pickups in the US to avoid the chicken tax) and eventually sent the American manufacturers back to the drawing board (ex. Nummi partnership where GM learned Lean manufacturing and Toyota got an American plant), or had them chasing markets that the Japanese couldn’t compete in easily (like HD Trucks).
I have a feeling that EV’s will see a similar struggle and possible Renaissance. Until the product can exist on its own merits, I doubt that they will take off. Chinese EV manufacturers have been so heavily propped up by their government that they are quite good now. If they can figure out how to make American plants, the domestic brands will need to go back to the drawing board quickly.
Global auto manufacturing has set it course. It’s going EV. Innovate, compete or die. The domestics can be complacent again, like they were against the Japanese in the 70s and 80s, or they can do something about it. At this point I see another bail-out.
EV’s still have major limitations that have been addressed too slowly.
They are being addressed rather quickly everywhere that isn’t the United States.
Comparing the US to other countries is not entirely helpful either.
Best example of this is with towing capacities between countries. The US has lower towing capacities for like-cars due to our terrain being steeper; our roads being faster; our weather being hotter.
I guess you have never driven from Germany to Italy then. No one goes around the mountains.
I have not. However, in sunny Arizona, we have a stretch of road that goes from Phoenix to Flagstaff and rises roughly 6,000 feet in 100 miles, including sections that are 6-7 percent grades in 110-115F heat. At speeds between 60-80 mph. Pretty hard on our cars, especially while towing.
I’ve been a critic of the EV credit since day 1, but I’m also a critic of its repeal.
OK, this dichotomy would already trigger 80% of US voters into calling me a flip-flopper, but the bottom line is any material financial incentive has to be tiered and gradual. Not all or nothing. Not here today, gone tomorrow. Phase it in, phase it out. The one good thing I’ll say about Trump’s 2017 tax effort is that at least it created more gradual tax brackets. Too many countries have drastic, fall-off-a-cliff tax brackets and that needs to change across the board. Nobody should have to even think about their tax bracket when faced with a decision or circumstance. IMO.
Second, if Musk is half the genius people think he is (and I’ll give him credit on intelligence, but not much else), he will do this political party as a gesture, but I think his real goal is a good old-fashioned vote splitting effort. I think he knows if he gets the Dems back in power, that’s almost nothing but good news for Tesla. For now he still gets to jump around like a political powerhouse, but I don’t see any real ambitions there.
How do you feel about oil industry subsidies, after 70 or so years of them?
Name a specific oil industry subsidy received by companies in the US that you would like to repeal
You won’t get satisfaction on this, because pretty much all of them are either generic business subsidies or “indirect subsidies” (read: made up) that try to capture environmental effects. Notably, this is the only industry for which those seem to be mentioned.
Generic business subsidies like is received by every other business including EV manufacturers? I do not know how people think it would be legal to exclude one industry from favorable tax treatment that all businesses receive.
Wait. Are you telling me the bank will not cash a check for indirect dollars?
Probably much easier to believe a big conspiracy that if only oil subsidies in the US were eliminated all of the big problems would go away.
Direct Subsidies
These involve explicit government spending or financial support.
1. Production and Exploration Subsidies
2. Research and Development
3. Infrastructure Support
4. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
5. Emergency Aid and Bailouts
Indirect Subsidies
These are often less visible but equally significant, especially for those that have massively disproportionate benefits to the fossil fuel industry.
1. Tax Expenditures and Loopholes
2. Insurance and Risk Absorption
3. Regulatory Exemptions and Preferential Treatment
4. Military and Geopolitical Protection
5. Environmental Externalities (Unpriced Costs)
The “pandemic bailout” was mostly via PPP loans which were famously available to everyone. We have strategic reserves of lots of important things, it’s not a subsidy. I won’t dignify the rest of this Gish Gallop with a full response but it’s much of the same. If you remove the “indirect subsides”, that huge headline number gets a whole lot smaller.
What are we supposed to do, just outsource our critical industries to China? Seems like from your other comments you think so.
Calling it “critical” doesn’t change the facts. You don’t want to counter the above because it is all true. As I stated, the fact that a few were available to others doesn’t change the fact that it is a subsidy. Letting them avoid costs that they should be responsible for paying is a subsidy. There is no honest way to say differently. If it is critical, then the government should own and manage it rather than create a class of billionaire oligarchs who end up having massive influence over the government and use that influence to ensure the rules are always in their favor.
I countered some of it already, and much of it is misleading at best. I’m sure it’ll play well though. The IMF report all this stuff comes from lists the “indirect subsidies” as around 75% of the headline grabbing top line number. And the “honest” word for those are externalities which are not subsidies.
That you suggest the government own oil production tells me what I need to know given that is going on in lots of places around the world and has…checkered results to say the least. Do you think that the people in control being “government employees” will make them virtuous and not self interested? We have lots of evidence contrary to that.
When a corporation is allowed to treat the harm it causes—like pollution or public health costs—as an “externality,” that’s effectively a subsidy. If I poison your water, I’m held liable. But when a petroleum company does it, it’s written off as an “externality”—a term originally coined to describe a flaw in the free market. Using that word doesn’t defend the practice; it actually confirms the problem. It acknowledges that the costs exist but allows them to be ignored by the party responsible.
You’ve also failed to engage with the core of the argument. Instead of offering evidence or reasoned rebuttal, you dismissed the points outright—after shifting the framing by calling the industry “critical,” as if that exempts it from scrutiny or accountability.
If something is truly critical to national well-being, then it should be operated in the public interest—by the government—not left to corporations that don’t have any better motivation than any foreign country. The examples I gave illustrate a deeply corrupt system: one in which regulatory agencies are captured by the very industries they’re meant to oversee, and public policy is written to serve a wealthy few rather than the broader population.
Both direct and indirect subsidies are not just giveaways—they’re the return payment for political influence. It’s not a defensible status quo.
If the U.S. wants to subsidize fossil fuels, it should do so transparently. Masking the true cost of energy distorts the market and undermines innovation. When energy appears artificially cheap, there’s no incentive to develop more efficient technologies. That doesn’t serve the public; it just locks us into inefficiency and dependency.
How to do it? Pay companies some amount for every unit of energy they supply, minus an amount for any “externality.” It encourages energy production while penalizing environmental damage. All the companies want to sell as much as possible, so they will want to keep their prices low to compete. That would be a reasonable compromise between state ownership and the current unfettered corruption that only benefits those who exhibit the worst behavior.
Thank you for that commentary. Well said, this guy could understand.
Buddy, I’m not going to fully engage with an AI summary, which the first comment clearly was. It even maintained the nice heading-and-bullet format it always outputs. I shouldn’t have replied at all. You can’t verify anything in there because you don’t know where it came from.
There’s plenty of AI slop already in the world, don’t bring it here.
A bullet point outline is your reasoning for running away? It is also ironic that you think your inability to provide any counter is made better by calling it AI slop. I suppose that just means you think A.I. slop is more capable than you are.
References, sure. BTW, this is all available via a standard Google search.
Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (IDCs) & Percentage Depletion Allowance: U.S. tax code allows full deduction of drilling costs and a fixed-percentage depletion allowance, providing major direct support to oil, gas, and coal producers ourworldindata.org+15fractracker.org+15eesi.org+15.
Royalty relief on public land & Sovereign tax credits: Federal lands royalty waivers reduce extraction costs; Foreign Tax Credit and Production of Nonconventional Fuels credits are substantial, with estimates such as $15 billion and $14 billion respectively gem.wiki.
Low‑interest loans and loan guarantees:Historic and ongoing programs (e.g., under the Energy Policy Acts) offer favorable financing terms to fossil‑fuel infrastructure fractracker.org.
Government grants for research, infrastructure, and CCS/Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR): Federal grants support fossil infrastructure; CCS projects receive hundreds of millions in funding, and EOR tax incentives originated in the 1980s eesi.org+4en.wikipedia.org+4en.wikipedia.org+4.
Subsidies via LIHEAP, Strategic Petroleum Reserve, bailouts, & pandemic relief: Programs like LIHEAP, SPR funding, and recent emergency support for fossil fuel CEOs during crises constitute direct public spending .
Tax preferences for refining, pipeline, and infrastructure investment: Accelerated depreciation and general tax deductions aid fossil-fuel logistics and processinggeneration180.org+3fractracker.org+3en.wikipedia.org+3imf.org.
Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) & foreign tax credits: MLPs bypass corporate tax; importantly, the Foreign Tax Credit reduces tax liabilities tied to overseas fossil-fuel operations reuters.com+10fractracker.org+10gem.wiki+10.
Implicit subsidies: environmental and health externalities: The IMF estimated cumulative global fossil-fuel subsidies at ~ $7 trillion in 2022, with much of that being the unpriced cost of pollution, climate change, and related health effectsen.wikipedia.org+2foodandwaterwatch.org+2reuters.com+2imf.org.
Defense & geopolitical costs: Estimated $81 billion/year tied to securing global oil routes is a public cost of fossil-energy relianceeesi.orgen.wikipedia.org+3fractracker.org+3myjournalcourier.com+3.
Regulatory exemptions (“Halliburton loophole,” etc.) & liability caps: Exemptions from environmental laws and caps on spill liability reduce compliance costs for the industry .
Military protection of supply lines: Military presence in oil-rich regions supports stable supply but entails taxpayer-funded operations, often included in indirect subsidy tallies fractracker.org.
IMF and Our World in Data report ~$7 trillion in global fossil fuel subsidies in 2022 (~7 % of global GDP), with explicit subsidies around $1.3 trillion and the rest implicit externalities.
In the U.S., direct fossil‑fuel subsidies are estimated at $20–52 billion annually, with total subsidies—including implicit costs—around $757 billion (2022) or more eesi.org+2eesi.org+2foodandwaterwatch.org+2.
EU and other nations also provide significant support; e.g., Germany allocated €41 billion in 2023 to coal, oil, and gas subsidies, reuters.com. Which, for a fungible global commodity, reduces global prices.
Not that any facts matter to you. Your goal is to prop up massive corruption.
Comment of the millennium. Thank you.
Generally anti. I wish they were more publicized, though, so we could have easy access to the information to help make decisions.
There was a short period of time where I was more pro-isolationism, probably in the early 2000s, where I felt that weaning ourselves off of foreign oil might be worth subsidizing our domestic industry if needed, but I never think it should be a long-term entitlement program — especially knowing what we know about the impact of CO2.
And corn ethanol needs to die, quickly, too. This is starting to make me sick to know how cheaply people can be bought out. Murkowski negotiated for some easy Pork for Alaska, and now the BBB is a reality. I think she could have held out for some more bridges or something !
Murkowski is the poster child for what was wrong with that whole thing. I thought of the whole big point that big, fucking wonderful bill was that everything was taken care of perfectly and beautifully. Your comment about corn ethanol is well taken because I just had a discussion about that with somebody today. Somebody can correct me, but I thought that that was a Reagan era thing
[Not constructive]
LANGUAGE!
I’m disappointed. I could have gotten at LEAST three more “fucks” in there.
Don’t play their game, post a thought.
I’m startled to find that two commenters can have the same name. At least I have a picture in my avatar to differentiate from this fellow?
^ Yep, this happened to me as well, I used to be “Shooting Brake” until I saw a number of posts with my username that were not posted by me!! Sure enough, there were two of us with the same name! 🙁
Thanks, glad it wasn’t a problem with my account specifically.
I’ve added a little to my screen name to avoid confusion in the future. At first I wasn’t going to change just out of pig-headedness (“Why should I change? He’s the one who sucks!” – Michael Bolton, Office Space, 1999), but better sense prevailed. Also worth noting that the change is retroactive to existing posts, which helps.
I was not happy that I had to change my user name seeing that I was posting under the name for 1.5 years already.
I don’t think there is much wrong here if anything that comes to mind. My only argument I’d like to raise is if any party REALLY wanted to give Americans “total freedom to pick what to drive, without subsidies” then end the damn gas and oil subsidies at the same time. Anyone who claims to be fighting for fairness in the auto market by killing EV tax credits but keeping insane amounts of gasoline subsidies in play, is lying to themselves and their constituents, period.
Goes to show it was never about freedom or fairness.
“keeping insane amounts of gasoline subsidies in play”
$3.5 Billion / 137 Billion gallons = $0.025 per gallon
Gasoline taxes are higher than the direct tax credits received.
This is a figure that very willingly omits countless subsidies given to the industry, many of which are not direct, such as deeply discounted lease rates for federal land from which oil is produced, negligible accountability for emissions from the production and use of fossil fuels (which creates massive cost on society which fuel companies do not bear), reduced or unlevied corporate tax rates, and subsidizations of other fuels (coal, natural gas) that are either produced by the same companies, or at times by products of gasoline refinement and production. Not to mention deregulation and allowance of fracking and other deeply environmentally harmful practices that allow for greater gasoline production.
That’s all ignoring the fact that the 3.5B number you are stating seems to be on the low end of the direct subsidies, with some figures I’m finding being closer to the 9B mark. Also taxes are not meant to be a cost of using gasoline but rather a way to directly correlate fuel with road use to account for wear and tear, and therefore should be high to fund the US’ garbage infrastructure. To add to this, the federal gasoline tax rate has not moved from 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993, which should be 40.93 cents in todays dollars should inflation be adjusted, which is fair to say that not touching this figure can be considered a direct subsidy of it’s own as it artificially lowers the cost of use, increasing consumption.
All of this is to say, yes, gasoline (and other fossil fuels) are massively subsidized in the US, in a way that does artificially decrease the competitive nature of EVs, as it makes the payoff period of their lower running costs (on paper, not always in practice) significantly longer.
The $3.5 Billion was from the congressional research office to see how many tax cuts for billionaires could be paid for by cutting oil subsidies.
Reasonable people can disagree on what discount rate to apply to indirect costs, which mostly applies to people who have not been born yet in other countries.