Vancouver Sun - Anti-Tesla electric vehicle subsidy article...

[Jaff]

I use the wealth redistribution comment because I do not feel that the EVIP program should not be tainted by a socialistic goal...it should be based on pure EV merit alone, and the expediency of getting as many EVs on the road asap.

We are dealing with a very limited supply of vehicles that will be impacted by this (as the Bolt and Model III are not available yet), all this change to the EVIP does is keep some of, what is currently the best, EV off of the road...illogical imo.

I don't really see it as a wealth redistribution system. I believe there is an argument to be made that economic incentives are more meaningful, and therefore more effective at the lower income brackets. I think tax incentives should be structured to get the biggest return on the investment, which is why I support income phase-outs. To be fair, I'm falling short on pulling up good data on the efficacy of tax incentives as a function of income. Therefore, it's possible that my basic assumption is flawed, despite seeming "obvious".

 

[beeeerock]

I don't really see it as a wealth redistribution system. I believe there is an argument to be made that economic incentives are more meaningful, and therefore more effective at the lower income brackets. I think tax incentives should be structured to get the biggest return on the investment, which is why I support income phase-outs. To be fair, I'm falling short on pulling up good data on the efficacy of tax incentives as a function of income. Therefore, it's possible that my basic assumption is flawed, despite seeming "obvious".

If the rebate is based on the purchase price of the car, it doesn't necessarily correlate with the purchaser's income. The multi-millionaire buying the cheaper car for his kid (or household staff!) will get the full return and the 'poor' person stretching to buy the Model S will get less. Where I live, the Model S is the only option (other than the X now) that can realistically serve as the primary vehicle. Distances to anywhere are too long and charging infrastructure is too hit and miss. If you want to replace an ICE here, the Tesla is the only realistic option. Perhaps no surprise, there are a total of 6 Teslas in this community of 85,000. I know each of the owners. I don't think any of us qualify as 1%ers or really live a lifestyle much beyond middle to upper-middle class. I won't speak for the others as to whether the rebate in BC ($5,000) actually 'allowed' us to make the purchase, but I note that all the cars arrived once the rebate was reinstated last spring.

If we had the full rebate value as Ontario (but on all purchase prices), I expect more Teslas would be sold here, simply because the net price would be down to a point within reach of more 'commoners'. Would the rebate trigger the purchase of cheaper EV's here? Yeah, probably, but it wouldn't necessarily displace ICE's in the same numbers.

 

[In2oil]

I know I won't be very popular on the topic, but an incentive to buy an electric car over 100K dollars is absurd. There shouldn't be any incentive period on electric cars. Once again the government is getting involved in deciding what people should drive, why favor any particular powertrain. I said it before and will say it again, any incentive should be spent instead on Free parking, free charging or even free registration rather than giving money to people that obviously don't need it. An electric car is not all that green, Production and cost of minor rare earth elements outweigh the benefits in most cases. If you really want to reduce your carbon footprint, Start buying local and Canadian. Stop buying Crap from China. Everyone in Canada will benefit from it.

There are so many other places the money could be spend. Don't get me started.

Warm Regards

 

[Porfiry]

I know I won't be very popular on the topic, but an incentive to buy an electric car over 100K dollars is absurd. There shouldn't be any incentive period on electric cars. Once again the government is getting involved in deciding what people should drive, why favor any particular powertrain.

I'm all for a level playing field, but to get there we would require the government to start taxing drivers for carbon, particulate, and noise pollution. We need to either incentivize efficiency or penalize wastefulness and pollution.

 

[Canuck]

There shouldn't be any incentive period on electric cars. Once again the government is getting involved in deciding what people should drive, why favor any particular powertrain.

Fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of $34B in Canada. So if any powertrain is favoured, it's clearly not an electric one. The subsidies to electric cars don't even amount to 1% of that.

IMF Pegs Canadas Fossil Fuel Subsidies at $34 Billion | The Tyee

Or if we look at it another way, BC Hydro is soon to increase my rate by 4% to meet costs. They are not seeking government subsidies to power my vehicle like big oil does (or rather to line their own pockets), nor do they hire lobbyists. There's a reason big oil spends so much on lobbyists -- and the government of Alberta even spent $24M of taxpayers money recently "aimed at American consumers on the easy availability of Canadian oil."

Oil industry association a powerful lobby in Ottawa | Toronto Star

I'm all for a level playing field, but to get there we would require the government to start taxing drivers for carbon, particulate, and noise pollution. We need to either incentivize efficiency or penalize wastefulness and pollution.

I agree with a carbon tax. It's worked well in BC. But at the same time we really need to stop subsidizing big oil.

 

[In2oil]

That is not true. A tax credit that an oil and gas company gets to drill dry hole does not constitute a tax credit., rather an incentive for further exploration. the O&G industry contribute immensely to the economy. I am in the oil industry, Get your facts correct, otherwise It's not my responsibility to educate you in this matter.

 

[Canuck]

That is not true. A tax credit that an oil and gas company gets to drill dry hole does not constitute a tax credit., rather an incentive for further exploration. the O&G industry contribute immensely to the economy. I am in the oil industry, Get your facts correct, otherwise It's not my responsibility to educate you in this matter.

Everything I said is true. The fact that the O&G industry contributes to the economy doesn't change my facts. It better contribute to the economy with $34B in subsidies! The fact that a tax credit is an incentive still counts as a subsidy. In fact, it is the very definition of subsidy:

"a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive."

The tar sands in Alberta are an embarrassment to the entire world and should be shut down yesterday. Alberta need to change and big time if they want to keep up or they will keep shedding jobs and at an alarming level, much like the horse and buggy industry of the past. There are many industries that contribute to the economy without making the future for my children more bleak than it already is.

 

[glenhurst]

That is not true. A tax credit that an oil and gas company gets to drill dry hole does not constitute a tax credit., rather an incentive for further exploration. the O&G industry contribute immensely to the economy. I am in the oil industry, Get your facts correct, otherwise It's not my responsibility to educate you in this matter.

Why should an O & G company (or any company for that matter) get a tax credit for doing what is the core of its business? Why does it need a tax credit for further exploration? There's already an incentive: to find oil/gas which the company then sells for money.

 

[Seattle]

Why should an O & G company (or any company for that matter) get a tax credit for doing what is the core of its business? Why does it need a tax credit for further exploration? There's already an incentive: to find oil/gas which the company then sells for money.

Excellent point - an industry (except perhaps a very new, speculative one), should not get incentives just to do their work. Saying that the industry employs lots of people doesn't justify it. Every company that has people working is employing people. If the industry can't exist without the incentives, then we have to take a hard look at whether that is where we should send public money. My industry, software, should not get incentives just because we employ overpaid software engineers like myself. It's great that it creates lots of jobs, but just let it succeed or fail on its own. In WA state, we sadly give incentives to Boeing to make its airplanes here. I wish we didn't.

 

[In2oil]

do i have to explain everything, Here's the way it works. O&G company lease rights for a specific Zone of interested usually for 5 years to the government owned land (crown land), BTW, the government gets approx 4-5 billion dollars every year from the oil industry fromland Sales. the oil company has usually a limited amount of time to exploits the zone they lease, unless they drill a well and produce from it, if the company fails to drill a well within the time period the land goes back to the Government and becomes available to lease again. If the oil company produces a successful well, they the company has to pay a royalty on every barrels it produces. Here's where people get all upset and it;s not a major subsidy, if the company drills a dry hole,they get to right off the expense of the drilling cost, similar to your company registering a loss. This is quite important, remember the oil company had to pay for the land (millions of dollars, drill the well that usually cost 2million dollars plus the cost finding the play (geologist in the office). There are no risk for government.
To answer your question, "There's already an incentive: to find oil/gas which the company then sells for money." The more land they lease and produces oil and gas, the more money the government gets. Believe me, oil companies do pay their share. of taxes.

We are blessed with resources in Canada. I am very proud of working in the oil industry.

 

[ohmman]

do i have to explain everything, Here's the way it works. O&G company lease rights for a specific Zone of interested usually for 5 years to the government owned land (crown land), BTW, the government gets approx 4-5 billion dollars every year from the oil industry fromland Sales. the oil company has usually a limited amount of time to exploits the zone they lease, unless they drill a well and produce from it, if the company fails to drill a well within the time period the land goes back to the Government and becomes available to lease again. If the oil company produces a successful well, they the company has to pay a royalty on every barrels it produces. Here's where people get all upset and it;s not a major subsidy, if the company drills a dry hole,they get to right off the expense of the drilling cost, similar to your company registering a loss. This is quite important, remember the oil company had to pay for the land (millions of dollars, drill the well that usually cost 2million dollars plus the cost finding the play (geologist in the office). There are no risk for government.
To answer your question, "There's already an incentive: to find oil/gas which the company then sells for money." The more land they lease and produces oil and gas, the more money the government gets. Believe me, oil companies do pay their share. of taxes.

So the quick summary, if I understand this (and that's admittedly questionable):

• Oil companies lease mineral rights on government land and pay market values
• The lease is contingent upon exploitation - if there's no production, the lease expires
• If they produce from the well, they pay taxes
• If they take a loss on the lease and drilling, they write it off against their gains

Is that correct and concise?

If so, I agree that the "subsidy" argument is probably overstated (unless there's something left out of this summary). It's a lot easier to read if you omit the references to money that is being paid in, by the way - those payments are completely beside the point. It's kind of like in the US where the $7500 tax credit is in place and people say "well that's just MY money I get back." No, not really. It's money due the government that you don't have to pay them. It's very similar to being cut a check, since technically that money is in their books.

 

[In2oil]

you got it, almost there. they don;t pay market values, actually it is a blind bid, the company will bid what they think it;s worth for them, estimating the amount of oil they can extract out of the ground.
if their bid is too low, the government has the right to refuse to lease the land as well, if a company thinks it hit the jackpot, many times they can end up paying too much.
The amount of money a company pays for the lease is paid to the government, there are no credit for that. Cost of operation as well as the cost of finding the play and drilling the well are all on the shoulder of the company. They only get to right off the drilling cost and abandonment cost . Since their are no gain.. they only get to right off losses. if an oil company drilled too many dry hole, bankruptcy is often an option.
anynone saying that the oil industry is subsidize is misleading their audience. Believe me oil company generate alot of money to governments no matter where they are. some government make it easier for companies to operate in their legislation.

 

[RiverBrick]

... Believe me oil company generate alot of money to governments no matter where they are. some government make it easier for companies to operate in their legislation.

If oil companies make so much money for Alberta, why couldn't the province put money aside to ride out tough times?

You mentioned that bankruptcy can be an option for all companies. When that happens, who pays to clean the mess?

 

[Lon12]

Inactive Oil sites:
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local...enforcement-of-inactive-well-sites-in-alberta

 

[In2oil]

Wow,, you guys out east need to visit a wellsite. What mess! Are you kidding me! When a rig is drilling on a location There are so many environmental controls there are no spills or leaks ever. this is no Russia and china. The land is monitored by land owners and if the well is producing , in the event a company went bankrupt the production is picked up my adjacent producers in the area. Perhaps you should get off the David Suzuki's website and get off the propaganda from the media. Dumping sewage in the St lawrence is a real mess.

- - - Updated - - -

Give me a break.. These wells are producing. Farmers on the take, They get 5-7K a years for having a wellhead on their property. Compannies have to pay until the wellhead is remove. Stop Crying.

 

[Lon12]

We have the same problem with gravel pits in Alberta. Cheaper to hold them than reclaim the land to its original condition.

 

[Porfiry]

Perhaps you should get off the David Suzuki's website and get off the propaganda from the media.

Yah, that Calgary Herald is a real leftist rag.

 

[Lon12]

An electric car is not all that green, Production and cost of minor rare earth elements outweigh the benefits in most cases. If you really want to reduce your carbon footprint, Start buying local and Canadian. Stop buying Crap from China. Everyone in Canada will benefit from it

Warm Regards

Is this wrong then?

Forums

No rare earth metals in the Model S

Submitted by Volker.Berlin on February 7, 2012
I know this has been discussed previously, but I could not find an authoritative source on this question, so I asked my customer advocate. Here is the reply directly from Tesla (received within less than 12 hours):
Tesla does not use rare earth metals in our battery or motor. Typically, rare earth metals apply to DC motors, which use magnets. One of the reasons we use an AC induction motor is it does not require magnets, which often contain the rare earth metals.

 

[Canuck]

Yah, that Calgary Herald is a real leftist rag.

In2oil is so fully indoctrinated by big oil you only need to look at his name to see that. And he wants us to get off propaganda! Big oil is the master of propaganda, having dethroned the tobacco companies from that perch -- but big oil is next. Most people can see right through them, even a lot in the industry who are fed the same propaganda as In2oil but see right through it.

The real sad thing about it is that there is so much easily accessible oil we really can't burn it all if we know what's good for us. But in Alberta they use a ton of energy just to extract dirty oil from the tar sands and scar the land and destroy wildlife in the process. It makes no sense at all. The best thing about the fall in the price of oil is the effect it has had on the tar sands. Even the best organized environmental movement couldn't have scaled it back so abruptly. Only the all-mighty dollar has that kind of effect.

 

[Ktowntslafan]

In2oil is so fully indoctrinated by big oil you only need to look at his name to see that. And he wants us to get off propaganda! Big oil is the master of propaganda, having dethroned the tobacco companies from that perch -- but big oil is next. Most people can see right through them, even a lot in the industry who are fed the same propaganda as In2oil but see right through it.

The real sad thing about it is that there is so much easily accessible oil we really can't burn it all if we know what's good for us. But in Alberta they use a ton of energy just to extract dirty oil from the tar sands and scar the land and destroy wildlife in the process. It makes no sense at all. The best thing about the fall in the price of oil is the effect it has had on the tar sands. Even the best organized environmental movement couldn't have scaled it back so abruptly. Only the all-mighty dollar has that kind of effect.

+1

Al Gore: The case for optimism on climate TED Talk Feb2016 Vancouver