Bloomberg
The Verge
In the US, it is a nightmare for car makers to sell electric vehicles. Currently there is a $2500-$7500 tax credit incentive for new buyers, but most people are still reluctant to make the switch from gas-powered cars to electric power due to cost-related issues. To make things even more difficult, the new Republican tax plan will terminate these incentives under a tax cut bill. The Trump administration argues that the mandate for car companies to develop electric vehicles is very costly and puts the companies in serious debt. This could be the start of a downward spiral for electric car sales in the US. Eric Noble, president of the CarLab, a consulting company in Orange County, states that "...the credits matter a lot. In states without EV (electric vehicle) mandates or incentives, you'll see sales crater." For the car giants, this is a major problem. General Motors (Chevy, Cadillac, Buick, and GMC) believes that the future of the car industry is electric and is currently attempting to work with the Trump administration to maintain the incentive.
I am astounded by the Republican party's decision. It seems as if Trump is moving away from forward progress by discouraging the sales of electric vehicles. In addition, Trump also wants to lower fuel economy standards in an effort to free the automotive industry of its constraints. If this plan goes through, I predict that electric car sales will fall dramatically and all the automotive progress seen in the Obama years will disappear (this progress being the rise of electric car sales and the average vehicle gas mileage increasing from 25.3 mpg to 35.4 mpg). It will also result in a decreased price range for most gasoline-powered cars, but I think popularizing alternative-fuel cars is more important than improving the affordability of gas-guzzlers.
What are your thoughts on this issue? Car companies are continuing to set goals to electrify their fleets of vehicles by 2025 or sooner, but is this realistic? Should Trump bring back the tax credit or continue to support the SUVs, American gas-guzzlers and Make America Guzzle Again?
22 comments:
It is frustrating to me that the Republican party is making tax decisions almost completely based on trying to to lower government spending and reduce taxes. I understand that this is an essential part of their party's ideology, and can be extremely effective if implemented correctly, but lowering taxes cannot be the government's only concern. Removing the incentive on electric cars not only has the potential to have a negative economical effect, it could have a huge environmental effect as well. Cars are one of the leading sources of CO2 emissions, and getting more electric cars on the road could be a major win in our fight against global warming. The Republican party needs to consider all of the effects and consequences of its new tax plan.
I think this is an example of one of the fallacies of a majority-rule democracy that is often seen in the US. Ultimately, it's clear and quite obvious that electric cars will benefit the environment in the long run and reduce the resulting effects like air pollution and global warming by turning to alternative energy sources. However, the industry for traditional cars is much larger and has many more workers, and currently has more economic output in our nation. It seems as if it's essentially impossible to push any legislation through the government that will be necessary and beneficial to the world in the long run but slightly hurts the majority of individuals in the US.
I concur with the other commentors above that Trump's new plan to eliminate tax credits for electric car purchases is an unwise move that will have long-lasting negative impacts on the environment. Yet connecting this to what we have learned about party platforms, it makes sense that Trump would choose to do this. Republicans refuse to accept the reality of climate change (as evidenced by how the head of the EPA is skeptical towards the reality of climate change). Furthermore, Republicans believe that reducing incentives towards electric cars will preserve jobs in many industries that rely on natural gas sales. However, in the long run, Republican lawmakers should seriously consider repealing this new law. Doing so will make America more energy independent, and less reliant upon fuel sources in the Middle East- a conclusion which would receive bipartisan support.
I agree with all the above points. The electric car industry is currently in its infancy and currently only makes up 1.3% of vehicle sales in the US. To the Trump administration, this money-dump is a waste since there is no clear point in the future where electric cars will suddenly surpass gas-powered cars in popularity. I will admit that most taxpayers do not want their hard-earned money going towards paying for someone else´s new Tesla. However, I think this process is necessary in order to make electric cars mainstream. If Trump is going to support gas-guzzling combustion engines, then let´s also provide tax breaks for oil companies in the Middle East.
The whole point of Trump's plan is to benefit big oil companies. Aligning with his past opinion and action, Trump is doing what he always, prioritizing profit over environmental progress. I find this counterintuitive because in the long term big oil will become more expensive to produce then electricity. Trump is therefore prioritizing short term gain over long term satisfaction, probably due to lobbyists and pressures from big oil, afraid to lose the auto industry market. I believe with the country's shift to a greener, more stable society living in the bounds of our ecosystem, we as a country need to shift our auto industry to electric cars. Therefore these tax cuts are a perfect catalyst for the transition. Eliminating them is but a desperate cling to past ways, and away from progress.
I have envisioned the electric car to decrease in prices over the years, increase in the quantity of use, and develop over time. However, through this new tax plan, the progress is cut short and will decrease, disappointing eager consumers. By the way, I like your twist on the slogan and I definitely think that Trump should bring back the tax credit. I agree with the other comments in which with the increase in electric vehicles there are many benefits such as a healthier environment and a more energy independent America. Although the electric car is in its early stages, I still believe that electric vehicles should and will be mainstream with mandates or incentives that will help increase EV use; thus, the tax credit should come back or other legislative action should be taken. Furthermore, I think that the opinion of the Trump administration is narrow and limited in that they can only see the current success of gas vehicles, and lack the bigger picture of a future with electric vehicles.
As stated before, President Trump is driven on profit. He sees a market in the oil and coal industry, and therefore disregards the environmental damages. The economy is constantly changing, and some markets end up disappearing and others will appear. The technology industry was nonexistent before. Society is constantly changing and things are bound to change, but Trump keeps resisting. I believe eliminating the tax credit for electric vehicles is not a smart decision and the decision only impedes on progress.
I don't like Trump trying to prop up big oil either, so I thoroughly disagree with the motive for getting rid of this piece of legislation. If we really claim to be the free world, and pro-competition, we can't be favoring certain companies over one another.
That being said, I love the fact that this tax credit is going to be gone. Even if electric cars are difficult to sell, it's not the job of the government to sell them! When a company produces a product, it is their own concern to consider the demand of the market, and if no demand exists, to make demand via advertisement, promos, etc. If the electric car industry is failing to do so, why should the taxpayer prop up their business?
The argument that this type of reward for electric car buyers serves the compelling government of protecting the environment is definitely not to be dismissed. Electric cars IF fueled by clean energy are definitely superior for the environment. Yet this problem is multifaceted: coal-based fuel and even alternative fuel sources also produce similar harmful environmental effects such as CO2 emissions and heavy metals. Does this not also seem a "short term solution for a long term problem?"
My point is this: there are obvious environment issues to solve, and I don't like how we (both Democrats for electric and Republicans for coal/fossil fuel) prop up private businesses to address it. Regulations that apply to ALL are fair, but the stability of the free market is hurt when you pick and choose businesses to spend taxpayer money on.
Although I understand where you are coming from, Austin, I kind of disagree on your point that it is not the government's job to sell electric cars. Well, I am not saying that the government should be forcing people to buy electric vehicles, but I do think that it is their responsibility to promote them and their use especially considering the increasing threats of global warming. The government can promote the use of EV by NOT taking away tax credits. However, considering that our current president does not believe in global warming, the promotion of EV is probably the last thing on his mind.
I can see where Trump's administration is coming from, with the decision of making tax cuts increasing sales of cars that run on cheaper gas and etc. However, with the issues regarding climate change his decisions are unwise. Lydia brings up a good point that cars are one of the leading sources of CO2 emission, and simply gives the question "Why don't people just buy electric cars?" Well, first of all they're quite expensive, maybe a bit too much. So, as much as people adore the thought of electric cars and their environment friendly usage, for some it doesn't fit their economic sense. But in Trump's case, his decision enforcing these new tax cuts have most likely decreased the chances of people buying electric cars, furthermore increasing the issues regarding global warming.
Like Austin said electric cars alone won't do much to help the environment, the electricity used to power them has to be clean (coal and natural gas are "cleaner" than oil, but are far from being "clean"). Assuming electric cars are contributing less to carbon emissions, I think we need to make them the future of cars, and in order to do that we need to invest money in making them more available for people to buy. Even though there is currently a tax credit incentive on buying electric cars, a lot of people still find it difficult to buy them, but I think that more people are able to buy them than if there wasn't any incentive. So, I think we need to focus more resources on promoting electric cars, and this bill doesn't do that.
Emily, I'm curious why you say it's the governments responsibility to promote EV. I agree that global warming is indeed real and that the current administration doesn't get an A+ on tackling the problem, but failing sales for EV show the American people don't want electric cars.
I believe the government's real responsibility is first to represent their constituents and to also represent the interests on the nation as a whole. Since we agree that people are interested in solving global warming, but it's clear that people aren't interested in EV, my question is why continue to push EV instead of finding another work around? (Albeit to be fair, "working around and compromising" isn't a forte of the current administration).
I agree with Austin here. I think that with how caught up people are about solving climate change issues, we are also misunderstanding the issue. Electric cars simply provide an extra degree of separation between the consumer and the damaging of the environment that we all cause. Somehow, this extra degree of separation seems to be enough for most of the commenters above and many believe it justifies an unfair government in a system that runs fine without its influence, but this is flawed if we want to be a "free" society. The government does not have a intriguing interest here because the energy used by electric cars comes from the same polluting methods. Also, Tilman introduced the idea that the government is just helping big oil, but the government is just removing a handicap to its commercial success. If oil sells well, it just does. Just because the government is not restraining it does not mean it's doing something shady to ensure it succeeds. I do agree with everyone here that the government has a role in trying to mitigate climate change, but this could just be investing in new science or rewarding people who use less energy. I don't agree with the government's stance on climate change and budget cuts, but I do believe that the EV tax credits were unfair.
I disagree with Austin and Micheal. I think it is fair for the government to support EV sales. The US government has supported its local car manufactures for years; for instance a few years ago it bailed out General Motors for $11 billion. Emily brought up a valid point- it should be the government's job to promote them. It costs manufactures a massive amount of money to develop new electric cars. All of the components including the new car structure, factories, battery development, infrastructure, etc makes it so that companies can't turn profit in a quick amount of time. Take Tesla as an example- they've dumped so much money into development and infrastructure (Superchargers worldwide) that they still haven't turned a profit despite being in business for 14 years. Other companies are going through the same financial problems, which means it should be the government's job to give aid and help popularize the next generation of green mobility. The role of the government should be to enable change and to get businesses going.
The context for the government bailout of GM was to prevent an economic recession from turning into an economic depression. This type of government action is an extreme tool and it isn't economically responsible for it to become the norm.
When are business owners actually accountable for their spending and actions if this is the case? Is it fair if I fail as a business owner, in say opening and maintaining a restaurant, and then request that my failure be covered by the successful restaurant across the streets's profits? There is a difference between incentive-ing risk taking that eventually pays off and covering a failed market. This is the model of private banks, who don't just excuse your debts if things don't work out.
If the government's is as you claim to get businesses going, would you support a lower corporate tax rate, or less burdens on what smaller businesses must provide for their employees? All these would also help a business get off its feet.
The government isn't an ad agency nor is it a partner company to Tesla, GM, or other companies. What I believe the government needs to promote is a level playing field.
I think that it is good that Trump is trying to deregulate the automotive industry. I believe that if a certain product truly is what is good for the US then the best way to make that product a significant part of our economy is through the free market because if people really want to buy electric cars and if they believe that electric cars are indeed the best option, they don't need incentives to buy them, they will buy them because of the fact that they are better than gas powered cars. The same goes for cars with more MPG, there should be no regulation on how cars are made, car companies should be able to make cars however they want, and the free market should be the only restriction on what types of cars manufacturers make. If they want to make ridiculously loud gas guzzlers that get 15 MPG then that is up to them, the government should have no roll in how companies make their cars.
I agree that Trump is likely doing this to benefit big oil companies by crushing an incentive to purchase electric cars, which will allow gas powered cars to stay mainstream. The money provided for buying a Tesla is not money given to Tesla owners, but money that they aren't charged and is a reduction in taxes, which Republicans seem to support until it can benefit the environment. Tax credits don't mean that the government raises taxes for everyone else, but it just means that the family doesn't have to pay that amount in taxes. In addition, a $7,500 tax credit on a car make that can range to $80,000 is hardly tax payers "paying" for someone else's Tesla. The government does grant subsidies to oil so I don't see why it could be considered inappropriate to support the electric car industry through tax credits.
Trump seriously needs to bring back the tax credits for electric vehicles. While he sees global warming as a small and insignificant issue, and thinks deregulation of environmentally harmful agencies like Big Oil is a good idea, taking away forward progress from car companies to help generate cleaner vehicles is just a horrible idea. his tax bill is supposed to cut taxes, and taking these incentives away from car companies simply fails to do that. Trump knows that his bill is such a failure that without taking these incentives away the national debt would soar out of control, he needs to revoke his tax bill, and start making progressive change, and not regressive change to society.
Over the last couple of years I have found it hard to put myself in Trump's shoes and try to comprehend his thought process, but I think this decision Trump has made is incomprehensible. Our future is relying on electricity and power instead of gasoline, oil and other harmful substances that will eventually demolish our Earth. I know Trump and many Republicans do not believe in climate change but in order for our civilization to continue living healthily and happily for the next couple million years, we must spend a good majority of our efforts and funds into making our world more environmentally active. Because of climate change and also just the deterioration of some major car companies, Trump must bring back the tax credits on electric vehicles.
I don’t believe getting rid of tax credit for electric vehicles was a positive decision by the administration. As our country is becoming increasingly populated and active, increasing carbon emissions and other pollutants of the earth are bound to happen. I think it’s important that any realistic measures to prevent more pollutants from deteriorating our environment is important. Although success of electric vehicles are not at a great start, it will take more time for EVs to become more mainstream — the use of incentives definitely help and I don’t think that it’s right to disregard electric vehicles now.
I tend to be torn between the opinions expressed by Austin and the negative sentiments towards the decision expressed by most of the other commentators. While I agree that it is not the responsibility of the Trump administration, or the government at all, to promote the use of EV to combat climate change, I do think that they need to do a much better job in taking strides towards combating climate change, and the use of EV cars is a good outlet for consumers to combat climate change while still driving. At the same time, I know that EVs have their own issues and aren't completely "zero-emmision" as they might suggest, and that there are many other ways that the government could support the fight against climate change other than supporting the car industry. Despite all of this, it has been clear that the current administration does not value combating climate change in comparison to past administrations, and I think that they need to do more to do so. While this could be done in many ways, I think that EVs not only have a lot of economic potential, but some potential to help the environment in the long run. Considering all of this, I think that the tax break for EVs could have been a positive, but it is not the greatest loss when considering all of the other, better alternatives that the government could, and should, be taking to promote the public to combat climate change.
Post a Comment