Subsidies are Killing the Auto Industry! Seriously.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ม.ค. 2025
- If you’re struggling, consider therapy with our sponsor. Click betterhelp.com... for a discount on your first month of therapy.
Fight the FUD and become a member! / @bensullinsofficial
Check out my daily EV podcast here @DailyChargeUp or at dailychargeup.com
// New Here?
Start Here - • New? Start Here!
Home Energy Tech - • Sustainable Home Series
EV Reviews - • EV Reviews
// Recommendations
Find the best Solar installers - bensullins.com...
Join the convo dailychargeup....
// Ethics Disclaimer
My approach to sponsorships bensullins.com...
// Affiliate Disclaimer
I may earn a small commission for my endorsement, recommendation, testimonial, and/or link to any products or services linked above. Your purchase helps support my work in bringing you the data and analytics behind the world.
Join the fight against FUD with data and become a member today! youtube.com/@BenSullinsOfficial/join
And here are some corrections / notes that members pointed out. I'll keep this updated as more roll in, and thanks for the support!
1 - I was off when I said 200B in lobying. It's 200M with an M.
2 - I calculated the $15/gal figure for gas in the US by using the IMF logic in the EU.
“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” - Henry Ford
Time will eventually end FUD related to EVs. Nothing else has traction. I look forward to the dozen critical videos responding to this video. Stay safe. Thanks for all you do.
What is with the garbage AI music in the background?
Your inaccuracies and motivations are reflected in your 2.8k likes. To be fair, you have some reasonable data points. But you're missing so many conditions. For instance, cheaper to hire labor over seas and talking about tariffs. When the tariffs come in, it won't be cheaper to hire labor over seas. Let's not build a strawman. Also, it's not 9, it's 20. Okay. Still abysmal for the allocation of funds.
Ben, one of the most interesting books I ever read was $20 Per Gallon: How the Rise in the Price of Gas Will Change Our Lives for the Better by Christopher Steiner. I goes step-by-step in $2 increments to show how rising gas prices changes the economics of almost everything. The biggest effect on transportation is that things scale up, so it becomes most economical to travel by massive 500 passenger trains and giant buses. Each step seems more and more uncomfortable, but by the end, society is cleaner and healthier, and better off economically. If DOGE wants to examine subsidies, it should start with big oil.
" *FUD* stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, and it's a marketing tactic used to discourage people from using electric vehicles (EVs). FUD is often spread by the fossil fuel industry to create fear around EVs and other new technologies."
Big Oil's motto: Privatize the profits; Socialize the costs.
They learned from the banks in 2008.
@@kenbob1071 All big industry does this though. Insurance for example. Just part of life.
Don't offend the conservatives with the DEI initiatives at Big Oil. Soon enough, we will have drag queen story minute on Gas Station TV and most conservatives will look the other way.
Big Unreliables motto: Privatize the profits; Socialize the costs.
@@RenlangRen I think it was the other way around. Banks and other industries have been playing catchup for most of a century
The cost of healthcare from breathing toxic air is astounding.
Not much of that from ICE cars these days (diesels excepted).
@@jiminverness Diesels were "supposed" to be less polluting, but that turned out to be a govt./industry COVERUP. Welcome to the "Military Industrial Complex". Still vote?
Especially in America where healthcare is specifically designed to bankrupt people
"Worldwide every year 1 in 5 deaths can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels."
Harvard
@@jiminverness☝️ think again.
@@jiminvernessTry sitting in a closed garage with your ICE vehicle running? Tel me why it’s different to be walking along the roadside with hundreds of ICE cars sitting there in city traffic?
Don’t forget about the banks (TARP) bailouts that cost trillions of dollars, the Farm Bill which includes all sorts of subsidies for corn/ethanol, sugar, etc. Also, the GM and Chrysler bailouts in 2009. For those that think that we live in a “free market economy”, think again.
It is pointless to argue about a definition of a "free market economy". There really is no such thing. There are always rules and rules effect parties differently.
My thoughts on this in a video later this week, but generally I agree
Don't forget the Big Oil subsidies..
I find it amusing that the government does not want to subsidize $7,500 EV purchase but will subsidize gas companies to keep gas prices down!!
TARP was never trillions. As originally authorized, it was supposed to be up to $700 billion (which is 0.7 trillion). As it went on, it was limited by another law to about $420 billion. Then as the assets bought were re-sold, the Treasury made a PROFIT of about $15 billion. As the host said, the eventual net costs of the auto company bailouts were around $10 billion (the government sold the GM shares and recovered most of what it paid).
No trillions in sight.
I like how Republicans have made a tax break for your neighbor a bad thing but subsidies for huge corporations that gouge us continually a good thing.
One example that drives me nuts is when the oil or coal industries abandon a site or mine and it needs to be cleaned up because it’s so toxic, the they claim the cleanup is an economic hardship and pass the cost onto the taxpayers. Why doesn’t that infuriate coal rollers?
It’s not really a partisan thing. Both sides subsidize industries they want to promote. And most of these industries donate to both parties. Has been going on forever.
Wow....Do you REEEEEALLY think that ONLY the Republicans are in Congress???? WHO PASSES the LAWS, and REGULATIONS????? How many years have Democrats have controlled Congress, and the Presidency??????? WHAT HAVE THEY DONE???????? Don't be STUPID. BOTH SIDES DO IT. So you blaming ONLY the Republicans is pretty freaking FUNNY, and A$$anine...
@ True but the EV tax break goes to people buying the car. Oil subsidies are for corporations that screw us at the pump and poison us.
@@imasharksfan1149 As a Republican with two EVs, I'm familiar with the EV tax credits I could qualify for. And I know there were no such credits for my prior gas cars, plus I payed about $0.85 in total taxes for each gallon of gas in my state. So how do the "oil subsidies" work? If an oil company pays $15 billion in taxes after deductions (instead of $20 billion before deductions), is that a "$5 billion subsidy"?
@@paulrybarczyk5013 yes
15 bucks per gallon? I'm okay with that!
*climbs back in EV and drives away*
I'd like a few more electric semi on the road before that, they are coming. 90% just aren't ready.
But yes. I'll jump in my EV mostly charged on my solar that was about one fifth of the cost of US.
If gas is $15, electric costs will be proportionately higher at the very least.
@henlofren7321 not necessarily. Not every power plant runs on fossil fuels.
@@henlofren7321
My cost of production is 6 cents kWh for nine years (and that's retail). And I export more than I consume (and get 4cents kWh) so that my electricity bill greatly reduced (expecting a small credit on summer).
@@kasmstamps1897
After all delivery fees and taxes electricity costs around 35c/kWh where I live. No room for solar unless you want to spend millions on a really bad home. Don't forget, most of the US population lives in dense cities like this, so your situation is the exception and not the rule. Most would LOSE money if they switched to EVs, and that's not even factoring in everything else below:
Time is money. If you're on the job and need to be somewhere, you're wasting at least an hour of wages every time you need to charge. You're also wasting extra electricity to find a place to charge since they're usually out of the way of anywhere you'd want to be. Let's include a lost opportunity cost of $25 an hour every time you charge on the road for a fair comparison between gas vehicles. If I did uber eats for the amount of time it takes for you to fully charge, I'd earn enough to pay for a full tank.
Next, let's talk about battery cost. If you intend on keeping your car for longer than a decade, you'll end up spending 25k for a new battery. Third party replacements are not available, and you must get all work done by Tesla. Factor in the increased cost of maintenance and you'll realize that you're driving a disposable toy. I don't even think I've spent 25k on gas in the past decade, and the annual maintenance cost for my car is under $100.
Finally, let's talk about Insurance costs. I bet I can pay for gas with just the extra money you spend to insure a vehicle that costs 5-10x more than mine.
Sadly BetterHelp online mental health service faces accusations of sharing confidential information with advertisers and having unprofessional therapists.
On top of that, the founder is fascist, racist, and wholeheartedly supports Israel in its destruction of Gaza
One thing I'm guessing the anti-ev people never consider is that if we adopt more EV cars, there will be more gas and oil for their ICE cars which would, in theory, lower the price of their gas and plastics.
Considering isn’t something that they do. See propaganda. Believe propaganda.
I’ve heard this point before. But if you think about it, oil companies generally produce to meet demand. Once they realize that there is less demand the production will come in line with that to raise profits back to where they want it. So while initially gas prices may lower prices that will be temporary, if at all. And by the way, I’m not an EV hater. I have 3 of them.
Actually the first law of economics, Supply and Demand, dictates that the price of fossil fuels will increase as demand decreases due to EV adoption.
@@ARepublicIfYouCanKeepIt Really? Demand drops -> Oversupply -> Prices increase?
@@morrisg You're assuming that decreasing demand results in oversupply. If you know anything about oil markets, you understand that the first think oil producers do is cut production in response to either demand reduction (as was the case during the Pandemic), or whenever they want to increase the price of oil.
just imagine how good the charging, ev infrastructure and other renewables would be if the routed even 1/4 of those subsidies to renewables.
US government has spent billions subsidizing "clean energy" the issue is renewables are great but what makes sense now is nuclear as that will provide abundant electricity at a fraction the cost.
@@joeyscleaninglady2877 Energy from SWB (Solar/Wind/Batteries) has been proven to be MUCH cheaper than nuclear energy. And the gap continues to grow larger every year as SWB gets cheaper and nuclear gets more expensive. That's not to say we shouldn't continue using fossil-fuel and nuclear power as a stopgap while SWB is grown to the point it can power everything.
@@ayCarumbaQueLio Is that why China is building 70gw of nuclear? Because SWB is cheaper? At scale nuclear is far better for grid stability sure batteries but for generation Nuclear is king
Thanks!
Subsidizing industry is as American as Apple Pie. The US has been subsidizing industries since the early 1800s. The US has subsidized and protected the US Shipping, Agriculture, Railroads, Auto and Trucking, Oil Industry... This has been a good thing. This helps the US make the progress it needs to remain competitive on world markets. The difference today is that the entrenched interests in Oil, Auto, Trucking, etc. are actively lobbying to stop the subsidizing of any new industries. This is actively slowing down the US ability to keep up with the rest of the world. In other words, the US is getting left behind and this will hurt us now and well into the future.
If they quit subsidizing big oil and baling out car companies the fall out would be interesting.
The money left years ago and empire tactics are collapsing. People worry about the Chinese and immigrants when we're rotting from the inside. It's not the subsidies, it's who ultimately gets the money. And it ain't the people.
@@troymartez They definitely don’t want the EV or solar industry to be subsidized.
You missed one major point. US corpos often use grants and other subsidies for stock buybacks instead of using it for supply chains, buildouts and upgrades like they were supposed to with little to no repercussions while the Chinese actually use their subsidies on things they were meant for.
EV subsidies are not even a drop in the bucket. How come people are so upset when their neighbor gets $7500 for an EV purchase but are just fine with the richest people in world getting 100's of billions every year in Oil welfare for well over a 100 years now?
People are told to look at the small percentage of spending all the time as a means to help spending instead of looking at the large percentage of spending which government doesn't want to touch. This happens in businesses as well. It's called missing the forest through the trees.
Much of that "welfare" is government loans, not grants, to get projects off the ground so the government can make even more money off these companies.
Direct tax breaks not withstanding.
EV subsidies like that do not benefit anyone except for the EV buyer. It's not giving EV companies more money, it's not creating more infrastructure, it's not forcing EV manufacturers to improve technology to reduce cost. Even subsidizing EV companies directly wouldn't actually get them to make products cheaper, since the people buying EVs are not financially literate, cost reduction is mostly irrelevant. While subsidizing oil (in theory) reduces the cost of petroleum products. Reductions in gas and diesel prices lowers shipping costs, which lowers the cost of almost literally everything, while also making almost anything that uses plastic cheaper. There really isn't any comparison between the two as far as which has more impact on people's daily lives.
@@Goodgu3963 Of course it's not only benefiting the "EV buyer". Where do you think the $7500 subsidy goes (for each buyer helping by this much, for the seller adding up)? All of the subsidies from the government goes to the seller, and benefit it and the buyer, not in equal amount necessarily. Subsidies, and taxes, everything that distorts the market, always affects the consumer and the supplier. With no or less subsidies, there might have been no sale, a car buyer might have chosen a non-EV. The extra money the EV maker gets might partially go into R&D, but yes, or just (partially/mostly?) into profits.
@@pallharaldsson9015
Anytime the gov gives a direct subsidy like the EV one, prices rise too match that.
Because people can afford x amount, so can raise the price by the subsidy and these people can still afford x.
I'm amazed BetterHelp survived the scandal.
First, what "scandal".
Second, why would you be surprised that a company survived a scandal?
Many have done so.
Mr. Trump has survived so many scandals it's, well, scandalous!
Some people are pretending it didn't happen at all... American denialism isn't just a past time, it's a way of life!
Did BetterHelp stop selling user's health data to third parties?
LOL.. Sure... /s
You should look into why those EV charging stations are not being built yet. The requirements to bid on those contracts makes many companies and businesses not eligible to apply. That is why they have not been built /started yet.
I’m surprised you didn’t mention the largest subsidy for the fossil fuel industry, which is our military expenditures.
There should be a clause in any government EV charger grant. That states if any of the chargers built using these grants is determined to have an up-time of less than 90% in a year. Then the company is fined for not maintaining/repairing the chargers at a reasonable pace. In other words, there is a big incentive and a lot of money to be made for companies to build as many chargers as they can. But there is almost no incentive to keep them operational reliably.
I thought the US was accusing China of subsidizing their EV industry... So Americans are doing the same but yields poorer results. Lol
Video on this coming soon!
I always thought that this position on China was a bit disingenuous as the US over the years has subsidized many new or emerging industries dating back to the railroads, airmail service, funded the national highway system, helped support the emerging fossil fuel industry and continues to artificially keep fuel prices relatively low with subsidies, and on and on.
Kinda. The complaint is that these are DIRECT government subsidies. Versus stuff like loans and even research grants. That's on top of things like semi-nationalized corporations.
But I don't disagree entirely and I want more American subsidies in certain places - especially in support of research and infrastructure. But, the Chinese have invested in electrification the way that the US invested in oil, which now threatens us at a level that requires massive action to overcome. The US needs to explore direct subsidies in this like battery tech and resource gathering, but it very much seems like we're running in the opposite direction. I expect we'll see more subsidies this year, they'll just be funneled towards the fossil fuel industries.
@@BenSullinsOfficial heck yeah! Looking forward to learning more about how China is subsidizing their EV industry
@@CyrribraeGiven the coming anti Renewable Energy & Electric Vehicle stance from the White House for the next 4 years, this is likely America’s Kodak moment.
Where the new technology is shunned, or at best given lip service, and the downward spiral into economic irrelevance commences.
Every once great empire has a point where the decline begins.
Knowing how the government works is not as important as getting your voting base to believe your opponent is lying to you and needs to be voted out. Once you are in office, it doesn't matter if you misled (lied to your base) the people who cast the ballots.
Hitler figured it out and trump and friends copied and improved on it. The real fun is about to start.
You mean that getting elected is less what are you going to do for someone but how bad the opponent is? Sounds about right. I've seen town halls where the politician was specifically asked what they would do for their constituents and instead of answering that would say what bad things any opponent would do to the constituents. It is really sad that many believe this crap instead of doing what is in their own best interests. If someone can't tell you what they are going to do for you, they should not be in a position of any power in this country. PERIOD.
I bought my EV outright. I got NO subsidy nor rebate from my government (the state government dropped the EV rebate a month before I ordered mine). There is no subsidy on the power supply for my EV (unlike our crazy diesel fuel-tax rebate which was intended to help farmers but has just boosted urban diesel 4WD sales). The government has subsidised and enabled EV public charger stations (though I hardly ever use those) however this is nothing compared to the government support for the oil & gas industry.
There are no EV semi-trucks, nor electric cargo ships, nor electric transport planes. Those subsidies don't just effect how much you pay at the pump, they effect everything within the shipping chain, which is basically everything you spend money on.
All traffic is heavily subsidized. This leads to massive overconsumption of transport. Which is a total waste for the society.
Stay home then. Set a good example for us.
Ben, than you for the superb video. And let's remember, Trump's appointee Louis DeJoy made the decision to buy USPS mail trucks from a company he had stock in, and which had never made an electric vehicle but got that contract anyway. Corruption at its finest. Not to mention, one of the benefits of EVs that has been forgotten, is that the air our grandchildren will breathe will be cleaner. How much is that worth?
I did not know how vast the fossil fuel subsidies were. Thanks for the the facts and info, rather than lies the other side likes to promote.
PLUS the $1 TRILLLION in unfunded clean up costs for abandoned oil and gas infrastructure across the USA alone...
I think that $15/gal is including the cleanup costs. The entire world knows how expensive Dutch gasoline is, but that's not more than $8.25/gallon.
I think it's interesting to calculate the price to kWh for gasoline too. This true price is like $0.44/kWh. The reason I want the kWh price to be used more frequently is that EV car owners will start complaining and demand fair electricity prices as well. Because (I'm using the Dutch example here since I'm Dutch) how the hell is it possible I can buy gasoline for $0.26/kWh while public charging cost like $0.52/kWh to over $1/kWh in cities like Utrecht, Paris, Vienna. I've heard prices in Italy are even worse. How much worse I don't know, but €0.99/kWh for 350kWh fast charging compared to €0.70/kWh here in Netherlands and 50 cents in the US, it's bad. EVs get road tax cuts here in the Netherlands unlike in Germany, but that's something they deserve IMO with those ridiculously high electricity prices.
A side effect of kWh price calculation is that car owners start to complain how ridiculously inefficient their car engines are, because they can compare that with the energy consumption of their homes or EV. A Ford F-150 consumes 140 kWh/100 miles whereas its electric version consumes like 59 kWh/100 miles during winter. That's with a car having the aerodynamics of a brick, a Tesla Model 3 gets like 32 kWh/100 miles.
Here is a good shortcut on info: If Libs Of TikTok is saying something, you can almost assuredly assume it is a lie.
Won’t anyone think of the shareholders?! 😢
haha
This is funny but it’s worth noting that we’re all shareholders to some degree. While 80% of equities are owned by the top 1%, as citizens, we ALL are benefiting from US treasury bonds and their allure on global markets. That’s what enables us to borrow and invest and pay for all of this stuff. It’s all interdependent.
The key thing to note here is that ALL energy production is a net loss. It costs a tremendous amount to locate energy, extract it, transport it, refine it, package it, market it, and sell it. Well more than the actual energy per unit volume will provide. So it’s always a loss. Not to mention the infrastructure needed to do any of that. Roads. Research. Regulatory. All of that is needed for the market to function and none of it is free. Renewables just happen to represent the least net loss when all things are considered and calculated.
Horse and buggy owners should demand their fair share of subsidies! But seriously, thanks for putting the larger question of who gets what, how much, and why into perspective.
In summary, there is no free market. Gov role is to guide the market in a certain direction. Etc.
Just like there's no true communism there's also no true capitalism.
If you're happy with the way your state spends your tax dollars then stay there, please! Moving to Texas is not dodging taxes.
Awesome job on everything else!
Excellent analysis, thanks. Summary: the oil and gas industry uses government subsidies to get more subsidies.
Roads and bridges are also subsidized by the government with no return on investment whereas metro and rail is expected to be cost neutral.
Roads and bridges should be *_congestion priced._*
UK gallon of petrol costs $6.63 per gallon
Due to subsidies and lack of taxes, USA petrol is one of the cheapest in the world. If the price of USA petrol doubled, it would merely be in line with other nations.
Is that 6.63 per US gallon or 6.63 per Imperial gallon?
@nickwinn7812 per USA gallon 8-)
Converted from average £ per litre to £ per USA gallon and then currency converted to USA $ at current exchange rate.
The day all the Americans learn that their country is capitalist for the poor and communist for the rich ... (privatize the benefits, socialize the costs).
I don’t see EV tax credits as being for the rich elite. EVs are affordable now and if your income is too high you don’t get the tax credit.
Especially considering used EV subsidies. Which help regular (not rich) people to buy a used EV at an affordable cost. Even if they cut the new EV subsidies, I hope that they keep the used EV rebates.
15:29 If those fossil fuel lobbyists didn't spend the $200+ billion on lobbying, they would require ~$200 billion fewer subsidies in theory.
That was corrected to 200 million.
@@midifool99 I still hear $200 B-Billion in the audio track, but yes, ~$200 M-Million is what’s on-screen (which I had to see for myself because the 200B astonished me 🤯)
I also still got 200 billion in the audio, and the graphic definitely seems to suggest it’s millions, although that number should still make people wake up and realize that the US political system is being rigged by the petro-terrorists from all across the globe, and undoubtedly its even more outright corrupt in other countries. I know for a fact that it is in Nigeria as a colleague used to work in O&G there, the stories he told me were literally almost unbelievable.
Don't forget about the subsidies for farmers and automobile makers
Thanks for taking the time/effort to put this topic in perspective. KUDOS!!!
A small correction, if I may: The C.A.R.S. program wasn't intended to increase fuel economy. It was a stimulus program designed to create new vehicle sales for US auto manufacturers. Several reputable studies show that, on that basis, the program was a failure; costing US taxpayers some $24,000 per sale, with nearly 690,000 vehicles sold, only 125,000 of which were incremental (source: Edmunds).
A few other fun facts:
• $3 billion in 2009 dollars equates to more than $4.5 billion in 2025.
• A credit of $4,500 in 2009 dollars for a new vehicle purchase equates to more than $6,756 in 2025, while the $1,000 offered for used vehicles equates to $1,500 today.
• The Top 10 vehicles scrapped under C.A.R.S. where SUVs, minivans and light-duty trucks.
• The overall fleet mileage improvement for C.A.R.S. was 0.6-0.7 mpg.
• The overall light-duty transport sector emissions reduction for C.A.R.S. was 0.4%.
• Foreign automakers Toyota, Honda and Nissan accounted for 41.1% of unit sales with General Motors and Ford receiving benefits of 17.6% and 14.4%, respectively.
Thanks for sharing!
Pretty good. Missed one subsidy though: capping an estimated 2 million abandoned wells at a median cost of $76,000/well.
Rather than getting rid of subsidies, the key is for governments to collect on their "investments" when it is possible to do so rather than letting these tax dollars pad the wallets of businesses. The problem of course is that governments are both slow and unsteady in their operation.
If you save $1 a week you may have $250k when the Roadster is launched.
This makes me so sad! 😅
@@BenSullinsOfficial Why? Did you drop $50k on the deposit? This vehicle is outside of the Tesla mission. Project should be scrapped.
How much profit do oil and gas companies make? When do we reduce the subsidies?
At the moment that is carefully controlled by said oil and gas companies. They carefully manage how much they produce to ensure it always looks like they need those subsidies. HOPEFULLY, Trump allowing/forcing them to use more land and produce more fossil fuels will increase supply and drop the cost. We shall see if he actually does anything, or if he does whether it's actually helpful.
2:30 I'm all for EVs and I drive one, but to put the "so what" in the $20 billion perspective, there are 265 million gasoline vehicles in the us, that equals about $75 per vehicle. The 20% for coal doesn't apply to gasoline, as well as what ever the ratio of the remaining 80% in NG vs Crude Oil. So it's in the neighborhood of less than $50/vehicle.
2:46 Total 1 Trillion for fossil fuel, that may be, but what's that got to do with EVs when the majority is Natural Gas, Electricity and Coal? Oil accounts for about $350 billion world wide and about 45% of that is for gasoline. That "so what" is $160 billion divided by a billion cars is $160/car in subsidies world wide. Is that a lot?
6:30 The London smog of 1952 was mostly caused by burning coal, you make it sound like it was oil by preempting it with the burning river oil story. That's a FOX news trick.
Pointing out the cash for clunkers isn't the smack-down you think it is. The same type of people that hate the EV subsidies, also hated the cash for clunkers program.
13:00 it would not only affect the price of gasoline, it would affect the price of electricity used to charge EVs. Electricity is subsidized also. Both would go up about the same. And to pretend renewable energy is going in without subsidies, is just silly. Renewables now account for over 40% of electricity in the UK, and the price of electricity has never been higher.
Valid points. Subsidies affect everything and everything is interdependent. However, per vehicle subsidies are greater than you suggest due to other taxes, such as registration and taxes at the pump. Those taxes dont just pay for infrastructure maintenance and improvement but also the REGULATORY infrastructure needed to make sure market participants are minding the rules. Infrastructure is a shared resource and important investment. It’s not just energy. It’s food. Its education. It’s safety. It’s our entire society functioning.
On your last point - the reason for the price of electricity being so high in the UK is because it's artificially pegged to the price of gas, not the cost of producing it. This was EU policy, I think due to lobbying by power companies during the dash to gas and the whole opening up of trading electricity.
There is no logical reason for this to continue either in the EU or the UK, but guess what? it's making a lot of money for those electricity companies and that gives them plenty to spare on lobbying.
Buy some solar panels, batteries and an inverter and stop making the greedy companies rich. Play them at their own game, stay connected to the grid so that you can buy from them only when you need to, this will save you thousands in the years to come, for a relatively small investment now ( small even in comparison to your annual home energy bill).
@@nickwinn7812 More importantly, investing in renewables now will amortize well better than fossil fuels, which will be all over the place over the next few decades as it dwindles and the expense of extracting it goes to the moon.
@@nickwinn7812 You are right, it's high because of gas, but I'd argue that it isn't "artificially" pegged. It's just a regular marginal pricing method. All electricity pricing models have to keep peak demand into account because using and maintaining equipment that gets used less and less, gets more and more expensive per kWh and that just gets blended in. It's just the way it is until you can completely get rid of it. Introducing variable cheap energy just increases the price because it doesn't eliminate the old equipment. Now you've got all the old equipment to maintain, plus the new. Until you don't need the old expensive stuff anymore, someone has to pay for it to be ready and used when needed. Marginal pricing was introduced to encourage driving prices down because if you come up with a cheaper method of production, you make more profit and the older more expensive method goes away naturally, but the flaw is if the new method can't replace the old method fully, it doesn't go down because you're still relying on the old method. Personally I like variable pricing, so people understand when it's cheap to produce and when it's expensive. As I watch the wholesale price throughout the day, it's amazing that it goes from a couple pennies/kWh to over $2/kWh at times.
@@esSKay25@nickwinn7812 Your definition of a subsidy is unsound.
Who do you think is being "subsidized" when governments collect additional fees on cars and taxes on fuel?
You apparently think that oil companies (or auto companies?) - not the people that buy cars and drive on roads - should pay for the roads they decide to drive on. Do you think the collected fees and taxes go to the oil companies? That simply is not a subsidy.
Should the cost of maintaining a car be considered a "subsidy" of the oil companies / auto companies also?
Do you think yearly taxes on real estate to fund schools and fire departments - are "subsidies" to homebuilders since the homeowners use government services - and pay for them?
Ben, Thanks for your podcasts. They are educational and relevant. Hang in there. Bob
Thank you Ben!!!!!!
I understand your concern but I respect your perspective so thank you for stepping out... I'm never surprised when people don't know about who gets subsidies and health issues over the years. Your best comment "If you're old enough". History is so important!
It takes real courage to produce these videos. Thanks so much Ben.
Would be interesting to see what happens if subsidies were completely taken away from both. Let the free market decide. Pretty sure I know which one would come out on top.
The outcome would be different than 20 years ago for sure.
It’d be fascinating, although many plastic products would skyrocket in price initially until better alternatives could be found and brought into the marketplace. A managed reduction of subsidies over a 10 year period would be great, it’d force both industry and consumers to reckon with our over reliance on fossil fuels.
@ good point.
The problem of taking away subsidies from everything is that governements would need to subsidize construction of crematoriums a lot because current facilities would be unable to cope with the number of bodies of the ones starved to death otherwise.
In my country, municipalities can apply for funds from the treasury. You have to submit a project proposal. It is not that easy because you have to jump through many loops before they will give the money.
I am sure the US is the same before they will give money for new charging stations.
Well presented. Understood and appreciated. Thank you.
Remember subsidies are not free. That country has to pay for them from other budgets.
All true and more. I'm not pro or anti oil; we should do long-term smart things. I worked with the purchase contracts of one of the largest oil & gas firms around. It's the big loopholes that everyone talks about, but there are almost countless small ones that probably add up to more than the big ones. If those taxpayer funded subsidies were removed and "free market" prices were allowed to reign, prices would look more like other countries' prices at 2x to 3x more. We have an ICE and an EV. We last filled up the ICE 11 months ago. The EV is so much more convenient, cleaner, and quieter (not to mention that it has crazy acceleration.) Oh, and our solar panels offset the EV's operation.
Nice one Ben!
Keep up the great videos!
Greetings from the Netherlands! 🇳🇱
Farm subsidies haven’t lowered food costs in the US but it has allowed US farmers to be so price competitive on exports, the very same thing DC politicians are accusing China of. For example 18-19 MT of US corn is priced at 2100 last December at China ports so roughly 0.12 per kg or per 2.2lbs. This is cheaper than the cost of Chinese corn farming so US corn is basically able to dump corn in China, exactly the same thing China is accused of in other industries by US politicians. On social media where price of 1kg of US corn at Chinese supermarkets is slightly under $1 while same thing in US is $7, not sure which State but it was on a video I saw a few days ago. This doesn’t compute at all, where US corn crosses the Pacific, goes into a supermarket in China and is 7 times cheaper than in the US.
Great topic. Thank you
I think the part that shocked me the most (as I actually did my own research a few years back on subsidies in the UK for renewables vs Fossil Fuel, and it was even crazier here), was how much the oil lobby spends on lobbying... And you think your individual votes actually matter? Who are politicians going to pay attention to, Joe Public and their poultry contribution to their wages as politicians, or Mr Oil and his Massive Wad of DemocraCASHy? If a politician is funded BY the Rich and Powerful, they are FOR the Rich and Powerful, they are not for you.
Thanks Ben.
The subsidies for corn are the largest of the farm crop subsidies. They were 2.2 billion in 2016. Was that to help keep food priced low and farmers profitable ? Only partially because as much as 1/3 of the corn grown in the US is for ethanol which is intended to lower gas prices. Keep in mind this is not a well meaning short term program to get the industry started. It’s every year for many years.
A hedge fund caused GM and Chrysler to go bankrupt by shutting down the financing of new cars. Look at the hedge fund who was involved with the financing of their cars at the time.
Actually, US automakers engineered their bankruptcies. The driving factor was the ever increasing liability associated with pensions. By declaring bankruptcy, US automakers transferred responsibility for retirees to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Good one Ben! Your channel is an island of truth in a sea of deceit… BTW I experienced the 1952 fog - which is probably why I have Asthma and COPD now!
Man that's tough, it's what took my mom prematurely
I've argued these same exact points on social media every time I see some yahoo clamoring on about EVs bad and spewing misinformation about them, their production and lifecycle and subsidies.
A first step would be to un-hide the price at the pump and do $10 off per gallon subsidy at the pump with the real $15 price on display.
New Hampshire recently acquired $15 million a part of that Grant to improve New Hampshire's electrical vehicle infrastructure.
You're approaching Patrick Boyle levels of sarcasm here, careful! 😂
Thank you …thank you. This was absolutely needed. I only wish traditional news outlets would devote their time to showing this.
Sadly they are bought and paid for by oil..along with others.
Thank you very much for this excellent reporting. First I thought wtf, block this guy, and now I‘m thankful I didn‘t.
The London "pea-souper" smogs of the 1950s (and for decades before) lead to the UK passing of the Clean Air Act in 1956.
The smog was not caused by vehicle emissions, but by burning regular coal to heat homes that created huge amounts of soot. This then combined with natural fogs in the Thames valley in the colder months to create thick, choking smog.
The Clean Air Act required that homes in urban areas switch to smokeless forms of fuel for home fires such as coke, anthracite etc.
Air pollution from vehicles continued to increase as vehicle numbers grew year-on-year. Most air pollution from vehicles in invisible today thanks to exhaust systems with catalysers and diesel particulate filers reducing soot emissions (apart from those rolling coal diesels of course which I suspect have no DPFs). Today its CO, CO2, NO2, SO2, VOCs that themselves increase smog, and PM10s that pose hazards to heath and the environment, even if the catalysers are supposed to significantly reduce many of the non-particulate emissions.
Thanks for this great video Ben.
Didn't the US govt subsidize gas stations back in the early 1900s?
End of EV subsidies will happen sooner than later in the USA sadly.
Look at what we got in Canada. The federal government announced last Friday that subsidies would end by March 31st because there's no more money in the program. Yesterday, they announced it's stopping immediately with no date of return.
Also the provincial governments are also doing similar things. BC has reduced the subsidies. Ontario has stopped some time ago. Quebec will be suspended on February 1st and supposedly return on April 1st... but who knows what will really happen by this date.
EV subsides would be easy to finance if governments would take very little for the oil and gas subsidies.
Great video. Love the data. Funny how all the oil subsidies are just forgotten about mainly because they are hidden. Thanks for sharing.
Fossil-fuels are subsidized by *_what fuels,_* exactly? Fossil-fuels (and hydro and uranium) are the *_source_* of all subsidies.
*_No fossil-fuels = no subsidies for anything else._*
One of your best, Ben. ✌😎
Excellent fact checking. Well said.
Ben. This was a great video. Keep on the good work
Do the calculation of cost per operational charger installed. So how much did one charger cost?
Thanks once again for your videos. Whenever I have heard the anti-EV subsidy argument I would point out the ongoing & long term fossil fuel industry subsidies…and I would always say, please just don’t believe me but do your own research online for credible industry facts for confirmation. Once again, believing in or fostering an online opinion based on a political or personal agenda is easy but actually wanting to do the research to know the facts of the matter takes curiosity and a willingness to want to know the truth and perhaps change one’s opinion.
Subsidies distort market dynamics by interfering with the natural forces of supply and demand, leading to resource misallocation and inefficiency. Removing subsidies would level the playing field, forcing businesses to compete based on merit and efficiency rather than government support. This would incentivize innovation, as companies would need to optimize operations and develop new technologies to stay competitive without relying on artificial advantages. Additionally, eliminating subsidies would enhance economic productivity and foster a more dynamic marketplace.
Subsidies are a significant burden on government budgets, costing billions annually and contributing to national debt. For example, agricultural subsidies alone account for a large portion of federal expenditures, and fossil fuel subsidies exceed $20 billion annually. By removing subsidies, these funds could be reallocated to other critical areas such as education, healthcare, or infrastructure. Furthermore, eliminating subsidies would reduce opportunities for corruption and lobbying, ensuring a more transparent and accountable government.
Subsidies often incentivize environmentally harmful practices, such as reliance on fossil fuels or unsustainable agricultural methods. Without these incentives, industries would be encouraged to adopt cleaner technologies and invest in sustainable practices. Additionally, subsidy removal would support market-driven solutions to environmental challenges, such as carbon pricing and private investment in renewable energy. This would accelerate the transition to a greener economy and reduce long-term environmental degradation.
Many subsidies disproportionately benefit large corporations and wealthy individuals, creating inequities in the economic system. For instance, agricultural subsidies heavily favor large-scale farms, while programs like mortgage interest deductions primarily benefit higher-income households. Removing subsidies would foster fairness, giving small businesses and lower-income individuals a more equal footing. On a global scale, subsidy removal would reduce trade disputes and enhance international competitiveness by allowing American industries to focus on their natural strengths, improving their position in global markets.
Corporate Tax subsidies have zero direct effect on the prices to customers.
Income tax does not affect companies. So giving them a tax break also has no affect on the company. Corporate income tax only affects the money leaving the company going to the shareholders. It does not affect profitability, or funds to make improvements, or expenses of doing business, in only affects the math AFTER all those things are calculated already.
So getting rid of income tax subsidies should have zero affect on prices (unless the shareholders decide they do not want to accept less return, and raise prices so they can make the same returns).
All it does is have a minor affect on their decision where to invest there money to get the greatest returns. The reason oil investmwnt gives above average returns is because of all the subsidies meaming they pay less taxes on the way to giving dividends to the shareholders.
Other kinds of tax like property tax, business licensing, and royalties do affect profitability. So those incentive subsidies make a lot more sense, but they do not add up to billions of dollars. The billion dollar subsidies are in Corporate income taxes which does not have the affect the propaganda says it does.
Now switch that to a person buying an EV, getting a tax subsidy or even better a rebate. That money does affect the household income and cash in the bank. Meaning consumers have more money to consume other things.
Which is why giving a person a subsidy to make a better automobile buying decision is far superior to giving a company an income tax break. (From a citizen prosperity perspective).
It's similar to people that use gas pumps to show how superior ICEV are. But completely forget the entire supply and distribution side that feeds that pump. They're blind to it by, ironically, the subsidies that allow the fuel to flow cheaply.
It takes a LOT of input and energy expense for that fuel to come out of the nozzle.
Those winter smog events in London even had a name - Pea Soupers.
If I were president I'd be pushing hard to phase out oil, gas, and coal subsidies over ten years, cutting the subsidies by 10% each year. I would also push to ramp up subsidies for EVs, as well as solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear energy production. As gas, oil, and coal get more and more expensive the clean energy would get more abundant and cheaper. Basic economics should take over from there. On the other hand, I would increase farm subsidies. Not only do American families need their grocery bills to not sky rocket, but America's security is impacted for the better by our ability to export so much of the food we produce. Research grants and technology development subsidies I would also increase.
Great job Ben.
There are a number of large, sophisticated tax breaks for wealthy investors in the oil and gas industry. It would be interesting to see how much tax revenue is lost annually with those tax breaks. Then comparing that to the annual tax revenue generated by having to pay the full tax amount on the interest made on your checking and savings accounts.
FYI. I live Washington State. When we pay our annual car registration fees on our Tesla EV’s, the state has added a $150 EV fee per car, to pay for the lost gas taxes for road maintenance. I think it’s fair enough. We do use the roads.
Trucked Up EV's already did a very similar script about switching back to a gas/diesel truck.
Problem is they need to start doing a charging infrastructure now! Thank goodness for the Supercharger network that's now opened up for others!
It's okay to keep making mistakes... because TH-camrs normally do this very often
Thanks, Ben. Great analysis. Of course, when we say 'government spending' we tend to think of it as 'THEM' doing the spending. Not US. But it's actually tax payer money. OUR money. So in effect, Americans are paying that $15/gallon - just not all at the fuel pump. And they're forking out the money irrespective of whether they own/drive an ICE vehicle or not.
Well said Ben ... Thanks for separating facts from fiction ...
Germany alone in the EU levies taxes on gas and diesel worth $55 billion. Add CO2 tax, VAT, road tax - it´s the biggest money making machine ever created. When nowadays I just hear: "add environmental and health cost" I do enter crisis mode. Why pay for filters, catalysators and all the progress that has been made in the last 20 and 30 years? There are 5 million climate deaths per annum, 10% die from heat, 90% freeze to death.
I understand New Zealand had to stop subsidising their farming (UK joining EU?)
They actually ended up with a much more efficient system
New Zealand stopped subsidising their farming industry in the mid eighties, some 15 years or so after the UK joined the EEC. Although, the reduction of exports to the UK from New Zealand as a result of it's EEC membership did play a role, it was only part of a more complex picture.
Yes, their farmers are doing well now, as they can concentrate on producing what their customers want, instead of what the governments thinks they want/need. The transition was of course very difficult for some.
In Denmark, an EU member, 75% of farmers' income is subsidy.
@ thanks for clarifying
When stating figures, it's best to use the same scale. If you're comparing $10 billion to $1 trillion, use $10 billion and $1000 billion.
You're doing good work. You're also vastly improving your presentation skills.
Before we even do any history, in traffic when you smell what comes out the back end of the car in front; what about that makes you want to inhale deeply? Then multiply that by the cars you can see around you, never mind the total number that use the road. All day. Every day. Sometimes I struggle to have respect for my fellow man.
Great to acknowledge these. Also always a good check for our bias is. Statements against your bias we are much more likely to factcheck
I was just going to say the oil industry has been subsidized for like ever, plus CA we get taxed at least a buck a gallon
Ben, you’re forgetting that if subsidies are cut, taxes and government borrowing will be cut, which will be deflationary because the fed will actually be able to get the money supply stable. A reminder that inflation is overwhelmingly caused by an increase in the money supply.
For example, if a business goes from paying $500 on energy and $3000 on taxes with subsidies but then goes to paying $1000 on energy but only $1000 in taxes, the net effect is deflationary, not inflationary.
Almost ignored this due to the stupid clickbait title and clickbait thumbnails, but some good info after all.
I it’s embarrassing how some of the things said in the US about EV’s, you know in part fuelling the anti electrification that’s going on. This must be similar to what happened in the early 1900’s when we changed from animals to combustion engines
9:27 in China Provinces do not apply to use them
.But given a target by center government . Under this, they are given this much money, to build at least this much, and in this much of time.
The difference between US and Chinese subsidies is that the US government answers to auto Corporations that demand subsidies for their own immediate benefit that allow them to avoid competition and prevent them from planning for the future. As a result, US auto is on the brink of collapse. China is the opposite. Their government controls their auto market, not vice versa, and subsidizes each auto maker to plan for and achieve National goals decades into the future (not individual corporate goals for the immediate present) created not to avoid competition, but to strengthen their competitiveness. As a result, China is now poised to dominate the global car market.
So what was the total income tax paid by all these big oil and gas giants?
What was there total dividen payouts in that year.
I'm curious to know how much money the government is actually making off these oil companies.
I still believe we need to end fossil fuel subsidies. Definitely can’t do it in one move but we should be on a 10-15 ramp down plan. People need to realize that gas is actually not as cheap as it is.