Quote:Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) stymied another Democrat witness on Thursday as she attempted to argue the merits of electric vehicles.

Amid reports of high costs, few charging receptacles, batteries that are vulnerable to cold weather and the negative social and environmental impact associated with electric vehicle batteries, Kennedy asked the president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association a simple question: “If electric cars are so swell, how come government has to pay people to drive them?”

Kennedy posed the question during Thursday’s Senate Committee on Budget hearing. SEIA President Abigail Ross Hopper appeared as an expert witness.

Kennedy began by noting, “I love solar energy, I just want you to know that, and I love electric cars,” but he then pressed Ross Hopper for details regarding why the government needed to subsidize their cost.

As Ross Hopper advocated for funding via the Inflation Reduction Act and noted that electric vehicles represent an important and “significant investment in the clean energy economy,” Kennedy questioned her remarks.

Kennedy said: “I gotta ask you this question, I’ve been waiting to ask this. If electric cars are so swell, how come government has to pay people to drive them?”

The expert in the field struggled for a response.

Ross Hopper replied: “So I think, like most government polices, right, are put in place to incent certain behaviors and so there’s part of the policy is that if we want more electric cars—”

Kennedy politely interjected: “Yeah, but if they’re so swell, why couldn’t they just, in a competitive market, you know, people, why wouldn’t they be choosing electric cars over internal combustion engine cars? Why do we have to pay people to drive them?”





Ross Hopper attempted to reframe her position: “I wouldn’t characterize it as paying people to drive them.”

Kennedy quickly disagreed, saying: “Well, sure we are! We’re giving them a big ol’ tax credit.”

The SEIA president could not move off her talking point and reiterated: “I would characterize it as the government having a policy to incentivize more purchases of electric vehicles.”

Kennedy, confident his point was well made, ended his line of questioning.

The Daily Caller noted that the Biden administration offers a $7,500 consumer tax credit for purchasing certain electric vehicles.

Financial experts project the incentive program will cost taxpayers over $136 billion through 2033.

Link

simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Why do we subsidize farmers, oil companies & and incentivize home ownership thru tax deductions?

(05-05-2023 07:18 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Does it really? How so?

(05-05-2023 07:29 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:18 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Does it really? How so?

1. Energy security
2. Decrease influence of OPEC
3. Decreased carbon footprint
4. Elevation of US in battle for green energy supremacy.
5. Better health with reductions in pollution & Co2 emissions.

The world is moving from fossil fuels & if we’re going to lead the effort then we have to incentivize/invest to reduce the short term increase in costs to the consumer. The massive investments from the world’s largest automobile manufacturers signal this inevitable shift away from combustion engines, so we can either ride in the electric engine or watch from the now extinct red caboose.

(05-05-2023 07:18 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Why do we subsidize farmers, oil companies & and incentivize home ownership thru tax deductions?

Actually it benefits China. The only benefit to the US is to the Power Companies generating the electricity. They are all in for it. Also, if I pay cash for my home, please explain to me what my tax deduction is.

(05-05-2023 07:46 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:29 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:18 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Does it really? How so?

1. Energy security
2. Decrease influence of OPEC
3. Decreased carbon footprint
4. Elevation of US in battle for green energy supremacy.
5. Better health with reductions in pollution & Co2 emissions.

The world is moving from fossil fuels & if we’re going to lead the effort then we have to incentivize/invest to reduce the short term increase in costs to the consumer. The massive investments from the world’s largest automobile manufacturers signal this inevitable shift away from combustion engines, so we can either ride in the electric engine or watch from the now extinct red caboose.

We tried making the US energy independent. The D's killed it.

(05-05-2023 07:46 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:29 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:18 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Does it really? How so?

1. Energy security
2. Decrease influence of OPEC
3. Decreased carbon footprint
4. Elevation of US in battle for green energy supremacy.
5. Better health with reductions in pollution & Co2 emissions.

The world is moving from fossil fuels & if we’re going to lead the effort then we have to incentivize/invest to reduce the short term increase in costs to the consumer. The massive investments from the world’s largest automobile manufacturers signal this inevitable shift away from combustion engines, so we can either ride in the electric engine or watch from the now extinct red caboose.

1. We already had energy security.
2. We didn't need OPEC.
3. Complete crap. Mining the metals and disposing the batteries is no less polluting than drilling for oil or mining coal.
4. A Pyrrhic victory for certain.
5. More crap.

(05-05-2023 07:46 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  1. Energy security
2. Decrease influence of OPEC
3. Decreased carbon footprint
4. Elevation of US in battle for green energy supremacy.
5. Better health with reductions in pollution & Co2 emissions.

1. Solar panels from China is "security"?
2. I can do that in two words: Permian, Bakken
3. Like this: https://www.projecttundrand.com/
4. See 1.
5. Whose health? The kids mining cobalt and lithium by hand?

Is your G&T and distribution system ready for say 25% more load at peak times?

Spoiler Alert: No, they are not.

(05-05-2023 07:50 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:46 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:29 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:18 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Does it really? How so?

1. Energy security
2. Decrease influence of OPEC
3. Decreased carbon footprint
4. Elevation of US in battle for green energy supremacy.
5. Better health with reductions in pollution & Co2 emissions.

The world is moving from fossil fuels & if we’re going to lead the effort then we have to incentivize/invest to reduce the short term increase in costs to the consumer. The massive investments from the world’s largest automobile manufacturers signal this inevitable shift away from combustion engines, so we can either ride in the electric engine or watch from the now extinct red caboose.

We tried making the US energy independent. The D's killed it.

Untrue… the US is as “energy independent” now as we were in 2020. Oil is a finite resource… there must be better long term solutions.


“U.S. Energy Independence Soars To Highest Level In Over 70 Years”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/202...5c635c977f

(05-05-2023 07:18 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Why do we subsidize farmers, oil companies & and incentivize home ownership thru tax deductions?

There are things actually worth using collectivism to support..like infrastructures. These are things so large in scale and expensive that the marketplace would have hard time raising capital to build and with little or no ROI. I oppose subsidies that don't involve that..including this one. The supposed communal good is irrelevant to me. If your product is worthy of purchase it will not need me to subsidize it. The marketplace will support it without stealing from me prop it up.

(05-05-2023 08:23 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:46 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:29 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:18 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Does it really? How so?

1. Energy security
2. Decrease influence of OPEC
3. Decreased carbon footprint
4. Elevation of US in battle for green energy supremacy.
5. Better health with reductions in pollution & Co2 emissions.

The world is moving from fossil fuels & if we’re going to lead the effort then we have to incentivize/invest to reduce the short term increase in costs to the consumer. The massive investments from the world’s largest automobile manufacturers signal this inevitable shift away from combustion engines, so we can either ride in the electric engine or watch from the now extinct red caboose.

1. We already had energy security.
2. We didn't need OPEC.
3. Complete crap. Mining the metals and disposing the batteries is no less polluting than drilling for oil or mining coal.
4. A Pyrrhic victory for certain.
5. More crap.

Crude Oil production dropped by under Trump due to the rapid decline in demand due to the worldwide pandemic. That being said, we’re again approaching the daily pre-Covid levels. Too, we’ve always consumed more barrels of oil than were domestically produced (we consume 20-21 mmm per day & at peak we’re producing 13 mmm) & just because it was produced here doesn’t mean it is consumed here… same refined gasoline.

I have no doubt you’re supplied with ready made arguments… Im sure you could have done the same as the population weaned itself off of kerosene lamps, but it does not change the fact that the world is changing & we can either lead or hand that over to a different emerging country.

We need to continue to produce fossil fuels but we must continue to heavily invest & incentivize green alternatives.

You should be admitted to the looney bin if you think a country of our size can ever be "carbon neutral"

There is a great book out on this topic that lays it out so simply even morons like Mensa could grasp it. Ill post the title a bit later.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

From the Forbes article:

Quote:In conclusion, 2022 marked the highest level of US energy independence since before 1950. This milestone was achieved through a combination of factors, including the shale boom which led to a steady decline in net energy imports, rather than being solely attributed to any specific presidential administration.

The first thing the Biden Administration did is come out anti-fracking.

Why'd we have a shale boom? Fracking.

(05-05-2023 09:06 AM)maximus Wrote:  You should be admitted to the looney bin if you think a country of our size can ever be "carbon neutral"

There is a great book out on this topic that lays it out so simply even morons like Mensa could grasp it. Ill post the title a bit later.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Of course not..and the entire issue is built on a house of climate change cards. I remember well when scientists predicted another ice age. The climate changes. Always has..Always will. Is it in our best interest to have clean air and water?...Sure. We should just stick to that and call it a day.

(05-05-2023 09:01 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 08:23 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:46 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:29 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:18 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Does it really? How so?

1. Energy security
2. Decrease influence of OPEC
3. Decreased carbon footprint
4. Elevation of US in battle for green energy supremacy.
5. Better health with reductions in pollution & Co2 emissions.

The world is moving from fossil fuels & if we’re going to lead the effort then we have to incentivize/invest to reduce the short term increase in costs to the consumer. The massive investments from the world’s largest automobile manufacturers signal this inevitable shift away from combustion engines, so we can either ride in the electric engine or watch from the now extinct red caboose.

1. We already had energy security.
2. We didn't need OPEC.
3. Complete crap. Mining the metals and disposing the batteries is no less polluting than drilling for oil or mining coal.
4. A Pyrrhic victory for certain.
5. More crap.

Crude Oil production dropped by under Trump due to the rapid decline in demand due to the worldwide pandemic. That being said, we’re again approaching the daily pre-Covid levels. Too, we’ve always consumed more barrels of oil than were domestically produced (we consume 20-21 mmm per day & at peak we’re producing 13 mmm) & just because it was produced here doesn’t mean it is consumed here… same refined gasoline.

I have no doubt you’re supplied with ready made arguments… Im sure you could have done the same as the population weaned itself off of kerosene lamps, but it does not change the fact that the world is changing & we can either lead or hand that over to a different emerging country.

We need to continue to produce fossil fuels but we must continue to heavily invest & incentivize green alternatives.

Then let's lead toward something that actually makes a difference and not some thinly disguised wealth redistribution scheme.

(05-05-2023 09:06 AM)maximus Wrote:  You should be admitted to the looney bin if you think a country of our size can ever be "carbon neutral"

There is a great book out on this topic that lays it out so simply even morons like Mensa could grasp it. Ill post the title a bit later.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

If your reading comprehension skills matched your eagerness to display your lack thereof, then you could see my post never mentioned carbon neutrality but instead said

“3. Decreased carbon footprint”

(05-05-2023 07:46 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:29 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:18 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Does it really? How so?

1. Energy security
2. Decrease influence of OPEC
3. Decreased carbon footprint
4. Elevation of US in battle for green energy supremacy.
5. Better health with reductions in pollution & Co2 emissions.

The world is moving from fossil fuels & if we’re going to lead the effort then we have to incentivize/invest to reduce the short term increase in costs to the consumer. The massive investments from the world’s largest automobile manufacturers signal this inevitable shift away from combustion engines, so we can either ride in the electric engine or watch from the now extinct red caboose.

Great now explain how the average American is going to afford these expensive vehicles with limited resources for the mining, the limited charging offered at our residence, the limited mileage offered by said vehicles, the cost to replace batteries when one drops a cell, oh and how are we going to fund the infrastructure to support two vehicles at a minimum per household that will need to charge their cars each night?

While this is a great idea, our government is extremely short sighted on how to implement this correctly, which isn't a surprise..

But hey the same group wanted us to buy their insurance via a crashing website.

(05-05-2023 07:18 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Maybe, maybe not. Probably not.

(05-05-2023 07:46 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:29 AM)appst89 Wrote:  Does it really? How so?

1. Energy security
2. Decrease influence of OPEC
3. Decreased carbon footprint
4. Elevation of US in battle for green energy supremacy.
5. Better health with reductions in pollution & Co2 emissions.
The world is moving from fossil fuels & if we’re going to lead the effort then we have to incentivize/invest to reduce the short term increase in costs to the consumer. The massive investments from the world’s largest automobile manufacturers signal this inevitable shift away from combustion engines, so we can either ride in the electric engine or watch from the now extinct red caboose.

1. Not of it doesn't work. And there's no certainty that it will at this point.
2. Again, not if it doesn't work.
3. Maybe a good thing, maybe not.
4. Leadership in a true race to the bottom. When the rest of the world see what it does to the USA economy, how many are going to be willing to follow.
5. Maybe, maybe not.

You tout all these "advantages" as if they are certainties. They are not.

Environmentalism is a rich person's game. When you don't know where your next meal is coming from, the temperature of the planet 100 years from now is not going to concern you. If we don't get India and China and the developing world onboard, their increased demand is going to blow away any decreases we make.

To be clear, I am concerned about climate change and want to address it. But doing stupid things that harm the economy in the short run without making a meaningful dent in the problem do not constitute solutions. If you truly think that reducing carbon emissions is critical, then the only way to have meaningful impact with current technology is nukes. And expecting some magic technology to appear mystically is hope, not planning. You can like that or not, but you can't make it be untrue.

(05-05-2023 09:57 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:46 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:29 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 07:18 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  simple… the long term communal good outweighs the short term increased cost to consumers.

Does it really? How so?

1. Energy security
2. Decrease influence of OPEC
3. Decreased carbon footprint
4. Elevation of US in battle for green energy supremacy.
5. Better health with reductions in pollution & Co2 emissions.

The world is moving from fossil fuels & if we’re going to lead the effort then we have to incentivize/invest to reduce the short term increase in costs to the consumer. The massive investments from the world’s largest automobile manufacturers signal this inevitable shift away from combustion engines, so we can either ride in the electric engine or watch from the now extinct red caboose.

Great now explain how the average American is going to afford these expensive vehicles with limited resources for the mining, the limited charging offered at our residence, the limited mileage offered by said vehicles, the cost to replace batteries when one drops a cell, oh and how are we going to fund the infrastructure to support two vehicles at a minimum per household that will need to charge their cars each night?

While this is a great idea, our government is extremely short sighted on how to implement this correctly, which isn't a surprise..

But hey the same group wanted us to buy their insurance via a crashing website.

Have you priced out a King Ranch or a Duramax lately?