The Answer To Our Problems, EV's

https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-waste-material-oil-and-gas-drilling
RADIOACTIVE WASTE: These naturally radioactive materials are called TENORM. Radionuclides commonly found in TENORM are radium, radon, uranium, potassium and thorium. The level of radioactivity in TENORM can vary widely.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9631407/
ARSENIC: The presence of arsenic in natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons is of great concern for oil companies

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389418308847
SELENIUM: Selenium is an essential micronutrient in the 60–135 ppb range; however, in slightly higher amounts selenium is toxic for animals and humans. The main sources of emission are oil refineries, power plants, mineral processing plants, agriculture and fossil fuel use.

There are many more. Too many to list. Government agencies exist to deal with these wastes. NRC, OSHA, EPA, and many state and local gencies. They have to monitor Corporations (and individuals) who abuse the laws. They have to hire legal representation for court cases. These are all subsidies to the industry.

 

How much does the US government spend every year on this? How much do the oil companies spend? How many cases are brought and tried every year? What is the total in fines collected every year?

 

A newly issued report by the Alliance for American Manufacturing documents the conditions leading to what Trump characterized recently as an economic bloodbath for the US auto industry due to EV's subsidized by the Chinese Communist Party entering the US via Mexico.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/busin...xt=The United States should,no time to lose.”

 

Entry level ICE cars are more economical to fuel than entry level EV'. The only segment where EV's were more economical to to fuel than ICE cars was the luxury priced vehicles but only if the EV's were recharged at home.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/busin...:~:text=After a hot start,17.81 per 100 miles.

 

All of those are BS. They're simply not subsidies. Oil and all of its products are taxed. Depending on jurisdiction, often times quite heavily (California being a good example. Europe being an even better example.)

Here's how that works in a fairly simple formula to calculate how much per gallon.

1. Look up the current price of a barrel of oil. Should be simple to find.
2. Divide by 42 (in US gallons, of course. Convert to metric for anywhere else in the world.)
3. Add about 10 cents for processing, 20 cents if you're paranoid.
4. Add another 20 cents (again, to be safe) for transportation.
5. Add 6% for the gas station's cut.
6. Walk outside and see what the price is at the local gas station.
7. Subtract 5 from 6.

That final number is how much taxes are being paid per gallon.

The simple fact that the government gets that large a cut from each gallon definitively blows up the whole idea of subsidies for oil.

It never happens.

 

They're subsidies. Your bizarre love for the oil industry doesn't change that fact.

 

No they're not. Your bizarre understanding of the word "subsidy" doesn't change that.

 

This bothered me when I read it because I've heard other claims that the IRA somehow amended the CAA which I find deeply disturbing if true. The basic issue would be one having to do with amending a legislative act (which requires 60 Senate votes) through a spending bill which only requires 51 votes in the Senate.

So I found a CRS report on the IRA and it confirms that the IRA does not declare CO2 a pollutant as an end around to continue to have CO2 be a regulatable substance after Massachusetts v. EPA falls in June.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47262

I, at least, feel better now.

 

If a company spills thousands of barrels into the ocean, and the EPA spends months and months, years and years, on follow-ups, listening to local residents, and sending experts and witnesses to subsequent trial hearings; that's a subsidy. The company, through it's negligence has exhausted EPA resources, and perhaps even required the EPA to hire additional resources or contract experts.

When a company creates a lot of toxic, hazardous, or radioactive waste, and the same EPA has to get involved. Ditto.

And these aren't the only agencies - there's OSHA, who has to constantly oversee compliance to safety standards, update MSDS sheets for new hazards associated with chemicals. There's the NRC who disposes of radioactive wastes (many of which never go away).

Regardless of whether the company pays for cleanups or pays fees, these are all subsidies. And yes, military ships, acting as escorts to Middle East oil ships is a subsidy. All the fuel, maintenance, personnel pay - all subsidies. Look at it this way. The military must enlist more individuals, to supply this manpower.

SUBSIDY, SUBSIDY, SUBSIDY! And many more!

 

No. That's called "their jobs". Paid for by tax payers.

Again, to call them subsidies is delusional.

 

In that case, Solar Tax Credits are not a subsidy. They are the job of the IRS.

 

The oil companies pay for all of that. Plus they pay fines. That is not a subsidy.

The government provides security for its citizens, infrastructure, a justice system based on the rule of law, and an environment where businesses can thrive in safety and security. Military protection is one of the services the government provides. That is not a subsidy it is a function of government. Some of the petroleum which the Navy is protecting is used to manufacture solar panels and wind turbines. Is that a subsidy of green energy???

 

No, those are subsidies. Free government money. The Treasury just cuts the checks. Cutting checks is Treasuries job.

Just like the $9 billion and counting that Tesla has gotten from other automakers solely for existing.

 

How is it possible to supply power to all the EV's that the progressive policies and regulations are attempting to force onto the American consumer? We would hear a lot of "Gee we didn't think of that but our hearts are in the right place". That is not good enough. Our politicians need to wake up to the false hypothesis of the enhanced CO2 effect and bring some sanity and concern for the American public.

Mr. Lesser is a senior fellow and Mr. Mills director of the National Center for Energy Analytics.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-we...d_pos6#:~:text=The futurists at,Advertisement

 

And so are the subsidies that I mentioned. Others argue that ignoring all the negative health affects incurred by society, for nasty air being breathed, is a subsidy to the oil industry.

 

See, this is the problem. America chooses to ignore all the health problems, environmental devastation, and militarization for your oil The GW Bush $2 Trillion oil war in the Middle East. Oil spills. Aiir pollution. Endangered species extinction. All in the name of oil And then you all love to nitpick a little incentive for green energy. Case in point.

 

That is not the problem.

 

The air quality in the US has never been better.

 

Progressives argue all kinds of inane things that aren't true.

If I go to the grocery store and the cashier rings up my purchases and I pay for them, the grocery store isn't subsidizing me.

No matter how many weird variants of that you want to throw out there.

Now if the grocery store is giving me those groceries without my paying for them, that's a subsidy.

 

The Iraq war was not about oil.

 

Good to see that the rest of the world is figuring out what a farce the whole EV thing is.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/oth...S&cvid=68a5db628f2549fb831f0457dc421621&ei=16

 

Why does everything you say turn out to be the 1%er viewpoint.

 

EVs hold so much promise to wean us off fossil fuels both in the Utilities sector and the Transportation sector. I hope I'm around to witness the end of the fossil fuel era.

 

You'd be too old to see that even if you were born yesterday.

 

Where does the power to charge the EV batteries come from? Wind and solar?