Climate and Weather

Hotair


We should be done with the electric car tax credits

JAZZ SHAW Posted at 7:01 pm on December 08, 2018






For the past eight years, the government has been shelling out money to offset part of the cost of buying electric vehicles. This is an artifact from the Obama administration and it was supposed to help the climate by encouraging people to move away from gas-powered engines. But the tax credits will be expiring in many cases next year and the question now is whether Congress plans to renew this taxpayer-funded giveaway. Forbes explored the issue last month, weighing some of the pros and cons.





One-time federal tax credits of between $3,500 and $7,500 were enacted in 2010 to help spur sales of plug-in vehicles, which was then a priority for the Obama administration. The incentives helped the industry register sales of 34,000 electrified rides over the first 10 months of 2018, according to InsideEVs.com, which represents a 58% boost over the same period in 2017.

But the credits are not permanent, and are scheduled to phase out during the calendar year after an automaker sells 200,000 full electric (EV) and/or plug-in hybrid (PHEV) vehicles…

Critics argue that eliminating the tax credit based on sales essentially penalizes automakers that were at the forefront of EV development and invested heavily in the technology early in the game. Not surprisingly, GM and Tesla have lobbied Congress to extend the federal tax credits, with bills both for and against the electric vehicle tax credits being subsequently proposed.

This should really be an easy call from a number of angles. First and foremost, targeted tax credits which wind up only helping specific companies or market sectors represent a distortion of the free market and are inherently counter to the concept of capitalism. A product or service which is valued by the consumers should be able to stand on its own without the government picking winners and losers.

Congress should also consider who is primarily benefitting from this scheme. These credits have been going, in large part, to people who can afford to buy a Tesla. (Tesla has thus far sold more than 200,000 electric and hybrid vehicles, the threshold where the credits begin to draw down.) That’s not exactly your average Joe on the street.





The argument about these cars reducing emissions is partially valid, but it’s oversold. Vehicle emission standards are far tighter than they were back in the 70s and 80s, but the stuff coming out of cars’ tailpipes is still a concern. But environmentalists are at least somewhat off the mark in claiming that electric cars are anywhere near carbon neutral. That electricity making them go has to come from somewhere. If you’re in a state that generates a significant amount of power through nuclear and wind the argument carries some weight. But in the many states where electricity is generated by coal or (increasingly) natural gas, something is still getting burned to power up your car.
 
Hotair


We should be done with the electric car tax credits

JAZZ SHAW Posted at 7:01 pm on December 08, 2018






For the past eight years, the government has been shelling out money to offset part of the cost of buying electric vehicles. This is an artifact from the Obama administration and it was supposed to help the climate by encouraging people to move away from gas-powered engines. But the tax credits will be expiring in many cases next year and the question now is whether Congress plans to renew this taxpayer-funded giveaway. Forbes explored the issue last month, weighing some of the pros and cons.





One-time federal tax credits of between $3,500 and $7,500 were enacted in 2010 to help spur sales of plug-in vehicles, which was then a priority for the Obama administration. The incentives helped the industry register sales of 34,000 electrified rides over the first 10 months of 2018, according to InsideEVs.com, which represents a 58% boost over the same period in 2017.

But the credits are not permanent, and are scheduled to phase out during the calendar year after an automaker sells 200,000 full electric (EV) and/or plug-in hybrid (PHEV) vehicles…

Critics argue that eliminating the tax credit based on sales essentially penalizes automakers that were at the forefront of EV development and invested heavily in the technology early in the game. Not surprisingly, GM and Tesla have lobbied Congress to extend the federal tax credits, with bills both for and against the electric vehicle tax credits being subsequently proposed.

This should really be an easy call from a number of angles. First and foremost, targeted tax credits which wind up only helping specific companies or market sectors represent a distortion of the free market and are inherently counter to the concept of capitalism. A product or service which is valued by the consumers should be able to stand on its own without the government picking winners and losers.

Congress should also consider who is primarily benefitting from this scheme. These credits have been going, in large part, to people who can afford to buy a Tesla. (Tesla has thus far sold more than 200,000 electric and hybrid vehicles, the threshold where the credits begin to draw down.) That’s not exactly your average Joe on the street.





The argument about these cars reducing emissions is partially valid, but it’s oversold. Vehicle emission standards are far tighter than they were back in the 70s and 80s, but the stuff coming out of cars’ tailpipes is still a concern. But environmentalists are at least somewhat off the mark in claiming that electric cars are anywhere near carbon neutral. That electricity making them go has to come from somewhere. If you’re in a state that generates a significant amount of power through nuclear and wind the argument carries some weight. But in the many states where electricity is generated by coal or (increasingly) natural gas, something is still getting burned to power up your car.
But their pollution is better. Who knew?
 
afb121118dAPR20181211044507.jpg
 
Around 1970

Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
 
“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.
 
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
 
“Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
 
Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
 
Back
Top