Of course there's no direct counterpoint because burning dinosaur juice has negative health impacts that are significantly lessened with cleaner technologies - so the govt gets involved to account for those externalities. I suppose you'll come up with some reason why it's justified, but a lot of states are charging extra fees for owning an EV to compensate for a lack of gas tax revenue... only, the EV owners end up subsidizing fossil cars by paying more per year than they do. Moreover, a lot of states ban the direct-to-consumer sales approach used by Tesla... specifically to favor the incumbent automakers/dealerships. Do you find these other issues problematic as well?
Asking people who drive on roads and cause wear to them is fair as fair can be. Very different than asking a guy who buys a Mercedes to indirectly pay for Tesla subsidies. And I promise pay more in road taxes than any EV in any state. Ive not seen an annual EV tax higher than $120 a year. I probably pay more than 3-4 households with EVs. Even my boat usage (which uses way more fuel annually than my cars) pays for the roads we drive on. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Don't complain about companies asking for unfair advantages with your mouth full or if you live anywhere except in a cave or tent with no possessions. Even the land your cave or tent is on is probably available to you through government subsidy or lobbying efforts. I, personally detest lobbying, government subsidies, and government controls when fundamental health and safety of others by others are not at stake. Unfortunately, at this point, if a company does not lobby, directly or indirectly for its position, it will fail - without exception. If they don't, their competition will. You smugly advertise your disdain for Tesla yet, you drive cars and use products from companies whose lobbying budgets and handouts exceed Tesla's by many orders of magnitude. They just don't get the easy press highlighting it making it easy for folks like you to find it. Everyone knows that Tesla news gets clicks and bad Tesla news gets more clicks. Fortunately, while it may shade a few weak-minded folks away from them, overall, they save marketing budgets and win. As they say in Hollywood: "Publicity is good. Good Publicity is even better". This is just another barrier that must be crossed if we're going to get away from oil dependence. The technology has been here since the mid 1990's and I've been working on finding a way past the barriers. Since today, Tesla is the only force leading this effort now that Carlos Ghosn was purged from Nissan, they will need to do whatever they have to even if it means they lose some would-be customer that get fooled by the propaganda machine into thinking they are evil. In general, I'd say it is ok for those who get turned away from Tesla since they often go to other manufacturers. Unfortunately, however, in your case, the lame vehicles and infrastructure grudgingly produced by other manufacturers has sent you back to ICE which saddens me greatly. I have learned, however, to accept defeat in a few battles on the way to final victory.
Way too much to read... But one point from the quick skim I did. Your example is not apples to apples. If Exxon was subsided more than Sunoco, I would not buy fuel from Exxon. This is why I waited for Ford to launch the Mach-e and never considered Tesla (and won't). I fully support pulling subsidies from milk, fuel, everything... let things cost what they cost. But I bet if you could get this to happen, someone would sue saying it creates an unfair burden on the poor. What is in place now is a simple redistribution of wealth. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
