Which candidate is better for Tesla?

[jbcarioca]

Looking more and more likely we need to shift the topic to "How will Hillary help the advancement of plug-ins?" instead of which candidate is better for EVs.

That is a good idea anyway. She has quite a large number of specific proposals. Some will help EV advancement, including Tesla. Otehrs might not. We should prepare ourselves to try to be positive forces towards our aganda if she does become President.
Please make the thread; it is your idea.

 

[Rebel44]

Since Trump supports coal industry, calls Climate Change "Chinese conspiracy" and made multiple negative statements against clean energy, IMO its pretty clear that HRC is better for EVs.

Fortunately, it looks like Trump campaign is effectively dead.

 

[Vitold]

Both candidates are saying what they need to in order to get elected. What they do after that is anyone's guess. Yes, you have some history on Hillary. Ultimately, she is a career politician, it will come down to $$$, and she doesn't want to upset that.

If natural gas is more cost effective than coal, they wouldn't have to interfere with the free market. It would take care of itself.

Economically speaking, Trump has far more experience than Hillary, and understands why jobs have left. He runs his operations overseas because it is better financially. If the government was not so anti-business, we could actually bring some jobs back.

Government is pro business that's why it sllows businesses to move their operations 'over-seas' and does little to squash inversions or off-shore accounts.

 

[timk225]

In the second debate, Trump said he was in favor of renewable energy. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, etc. Clinton claims to be in favor of it also, but we know how bought and paid for she already is by big oil and big wall street and big other corporations.

 

[S'toon]

In the second debate, Trump said he was in favor of renewable energy. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, etc. Clinton claims to be in favor of it also, but we know how bought and paid for she already is by big oil and big wall street and big other corporations.

A Trump presidency is a clean energy nightmare
He’s been clear he’ll do everything in his power to undermine clean energy — both here and globally.

The good news is that a President Donald Trump could not stop the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. That trend is irreversible.

The bad news is that he could probably slow it enough to destroy the modest chance the world now has to avoid catastrophic warming in the wake of the Paris climate agreement.

Trump has pledged to increase fossil fuel production, while he has disdained clean energy. For instance, he told the red-sweatered Kenneth Bone in the second presidential debate: “There is a thing called clean coal. Coal will last for 1,000 years in this country.” Not. And not.

<snip>

If a President Trump started favoring fossil fuels while dialing back clean energy efforts, it would slow the clean energy transition globally and undermine the ability of U.S. companies to complete globally.

Even worse, if we slow clean energy deployment, then we will undermine the global effort agreed to in Paris last year to keep carbon pollution below catastrophic levels. After all, we are the world’s second biggest carbon polluter (after China). The world can’t win this fight if we sit out the battle.

Unfortunately, Trump has been clear he’ll do everything in his power to undermine clean energy — both here and globally. He’s said he would work to kill both the Paris climate agreement and EPA’s carbon pollution standards for existing utilities, the Clean Power Plan.

<snip>

And by appointing fossil fuel advocates throughout the executive branch, a President Trump could further hinder clean energy, while expanding the advantages fossil fuels already enjoy.

Shockingly, Trump has put a climate science denier in charge of his EPA transition. And he is reportedly considering oil executives to run both the Departments of Energy and Interior.

<snip>

Full article at:
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-stop-clean-energy-4c3bab42f73#.uk7o1y4yw

 

[jspayneii]

Government is pro business that's why it sllows businesses to move their operations 'over-seas' and does little to squash inversions or off-shore accounts.

Government is only pro-business when said business funds their election campaigns. This is typically for large corporations, and not for the small business.

Full article at:
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-stop-clean-energy-4c3bab42f73#.uk7o1y4yw

Perhaps you can find a less biased source to quote. They are obviously anti-Trump. I personally believe he isn't against clean energy. He is just for the competition in the energy space. I have ready several posts here about natural gas being a better alternative, and cheaper than coal. If that is true, as has been said, the coal is irrelevant. If it isn't cost effective, we will stop mining coal. That is just the free market.

The biggest issue that I see is that the whole world NEEDS to embrace the policies, and that is not happening. As long as the 3rd world is polluting, the US, and other western countries improving our emissions is relatively worthless. I don't believe we can compensate enough.

My other issue with "clean energy" is that many people that are pushing the agenda are hypocrites, flying everywhere in their private jets, not practicing what they are preaching.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against cleaning up our act. If we can make it cost effective, and get everyone to commit to it.

 

[jbcarioca]

Government is only pro-business when said business funds their election campaigns. This is typically for large corporations, and not for the small business.


Perhaps you can find a less biased source to quote. They are obviously anti-Trump. I personally believe he isn't against clean energy. He is just for the competition in the energy space. I have ready several posts here about natural gas being a better alternative, and cheaper than coal. If that is true, as has been said, the coal is irrelevant. If it isn't cost effective, we will stop mining coal. That is just the free market.

The biggest issue that I see is that the whole world NEEDS to embrace the policies, and that is not happening. As long as the 3rd world is polluting, the US, and other western countries improving our emissions is relatively worthless. I don't believe we can compensate enough.

My other issue with "clean energy" is that many people that are pushing the agenda are hypocrites, flying everywhere in their private jets, not practicing what they are preaching.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against cleaning up our act. If we can make it cost effective, and get everyone to commit to it.

My view, point by point:
1. Citizens United has accelerated what Sanders called ''corrupt", Trump calls "rigged" and Clinton vows to try to change. We need to remember that Citizens United and Shelby County v Holder have set the stage for this. Both act to suppress political support for BEV by acting to enforce "highest bidder" policies that favor those with deepest pockets, almost never are those "green" advocates.
2. The continuation of heavy subsidies for coal, oil, fracking and pipelines vastly outweigh anything subsidizing BEV and renewables. Natural gas is ascending now in the US almost entirely because of fracking, making natural gas cheap today, but making earthquakes and water pollution ascendant. Guess who ends out paying fir those things? Were this really a "free market" coal would have yielded long ago, assuming that the "free market" would have made the coal industry pay for environmental damages, health problems for coal miners, etc. of course the "free market" rarely makes polluters pay for the damage they cause.
3. I agree with almost our entire third paragraph, except that I think every reduction in environmental damage is positive. Of course if we cannot stop "exporting pollution" to China and others the impact of conservation will be much less. Oddly China may be doing more to promote BEV's than most countries even as the build coal-fired power plants.
4. Hypocrisy reigns eternally among human beings, it is not just Green energy advocates.

If total costs are considered wind and solar power are already competitive, but all the subsidies, direct and indirect, must be considered.

Finally so long as major political party candidates can openly advocate returning to asbestos "the World Trade Center would not have fallen if it had [been protected by] asbestos. The same candidate recommends 'clean coal', itself an oxymoron.

IMHO, the eventual success of BEV will be less about political positions and more about delivering ICE-equivalent range at ICE-equivalent prices.

 

[Neohippy]

I will keep it simple. The right wing and the left wing are both attached to the same bird. It doesn't make a difference they are both the same

 

[McRat]

When you read the Grassy Knoll sites that say the Oil Companies get Subsidies...

They are deliberating trying to mislead you. They think liberals are gullible and incapable of critical thinking or doing research, so they keep at it.

By their definition, every American and American business is heavily subsidized by the Federal Government. If you are middle class or higher, or own a business, you know what a steaming pile that is.

Did you ever get any tax deduction, credit, write off, depreciation, etc? Then you are Subsidized according to concept of "All Gross Sales or Income is Government Property, when they allow you to keep any of it, that is a subsidy,"

If you were a taco cart, your subsidies would be deducting the cost of tortillas, meat, beans, rice, wages paid to your assistant, electricity used, etc. In a Perfect World, if your cash register had $1000 dollars in it at the end of the day, you would mail it off to Washington. You could not pay your assistant, get supplies for tomorrow, or pay the bills.

 

[jbcarioca]

When you read the Grassy Knoll sites that say the Oil Companies get Subsidies...

Please do not make loose polemic arguments. Let us deal in facts, please:

The Depletion allowance- do not take any persons word, just read the IRS rule:
Publication 535 (2015), Business Expenses
That is a very convenient protection from taxation that exists only for extractive industries. The other special rules such as MACR, can apply to any capital expenditure so is not specific to this issue.
That is only one of the subsidies, but it is one that is exceedingly easy to understand.

As for your other statements, I am sure you did not actually think they were related to our topic at hand, so I shall refrain from comment.

 

[N5329K]

I will keep it simple. The right wing and the left wing are both attached to the same bird. It doesn't make a difference they are both the same

Strongly disagree. That view siphoned off more than enough "they're all the same" voters to hand Florida, and the presidency, to Shrub in 2000. You and I and everyone else knows how that story ended.
Robin

 

[McRat]

Please do not make loose polemic arguments. Let us deal in facts, please:

The Depletion allowance- do not take any persons word, just read the IRS rule:
Publication 535 (2015), Business Expenses
That is a very convenient protection from taxation that exists only for extractive industries. The other special rules such as MACR, can apply to any capital expenditure so is not specific to this issue.
That is only one of the subsidies, but it is one that is exceedingly easy to understand.

As for your other statements, I am sure you did not actually think they were related to our topic at hand, so I shall refrain from comment.

So you want to eliminate depreciation of assets?

Or you want to eliminate depreciation of all assets that do not get your own beak wet?

The rest? The cost of materials and labor, are also claimed to be "subsidies" by the EcoDeception groups.

Read up on how they do their math, if they bother telling you.

 

[rxlawdude]

"Eco deception groups."

Why the heck are you here, McRat? You don't own a Tesla, you constantly natter about how great the Volt and Bolt are, and generally behave like a Trump voter.

 

[LastGas]

There was a question on energy policy at the debate last night and Trump is strongly against the current push to clean energy and renewables that has hurt the coal industry and called for a return to coal.

One can look at the transformation to clean energy as one of government policy, but the inevitable controller is economics. The cost of solar keeps coming down. THe cost of storage keeps coming down. It becomes cheaper to store energy in a battery than to run a peak-demand coal fired plant. It becomes cheaper to generate solar on your house than to buy of off the grid. In 2-3 years it won't matter how clean the coal is. Renewable energy will be cheaper.

 

[Weezer Fan]

The price of natural gas is what's killing coal in the US. There are some EPA policies that are accelerating the decline and making it a bit more expensive, but ultimately natural gas is doing in coal. The oil and gas boom produced more natural gas than oil in the US. There are a lot of moves to try and build LNG ports to export the extra gas to other countries, but there is a lot of NIMBY push back.

I disagree about Trump and better economics. Trump has been one of those American business people taking advantage of foreign labor to make his goods.

The government is not anti-business, lots of American industries get huge subsidies of one form or another and other favors. The fact of the matter is the cost of labor has gotten expensive because the cost of living is more expensive in a first world country. It's a lot cheaper to have a lot of things made overseas by cheaper labor in countries with lower costs of living and shipped here.

The economic position of the US in the 1950s was an anomaly in both US and world history. By 1940, the US was in the same position China is now, it had 50% of the manufacturing capacity in the world. The cost of living wasn't all that high yet, so uneducated workers could make a good living manufacturing things. The US had a growing domestic market, plus was a major exporter. The US was also a net energy exporter. The vast oil reserves in the US allowed the US to enjoy dirt cheap energy and export a lot of oil overseas too.

By 1945, the US had roughly 75% of the world's production capacity and most of the potential competition had bombed out factories and cratered economies. Almost every developed country was dependent on the US for survival. The US helped Europe and Japan rebuild, but the US dominance economically lasted until the 1970s. The first sign of decline was when the cheap to produce US oil began to run out in the early 70s and the US became dependent on imported oil. A large percentage of US electricity plants were oil fired back then.

Soon after the US oil started to run out, a lot of poor countries saw their route to prosperity was to develop a manufacturing base and beat US workers on price. Japan was the first to do this. Then when the cost of living in Japan pushed wages up too far, Taiwan did the same thing. Next other Asian countries got in on it. A lot of those countries are now fully developed and are not price competitive on the junk they used to make, but are competitive on high quality items like sophisticated electronics.

A lot of American who grew up in the 50s and 60s thought the economic prosperity they saw was "normal". As the US declined, they didn't realize the forces causing it were largely out of the control of the US government. There have been specific US government policies that didn't help the situation and in some cases accelerated the decline, but the trend was pretty much inevitable.

There is hope that the US will get back manufacturing in the coming years, but the bad news for those without college degrees, these new factories are going to be highly automated and the number of jobs will be greatly reduced from the past. And most of these new jobs are going to require at least some post high school education. The days of getting a high school degree and working at the local factory are over. Those jobs will never come back because the US can't compete with less developed countries on the economic factors.

The question that is left unanswered is what does the culture do with the people who are incapable or unwilling to get the education needed for the new economy. Those people are very angry and they are justified, but they are blaming the government when the reality is more complex.

This is a great synopsis of American prosperity history. I laugh as I watch the debates. The President isn't a CEO and doesn't have the power to do most of the things the candidates promise.

I have also been wondering the same things you posted in your last 2 paragraphs. I feel terrible for people in coal country. They believe, (or at least hope), a politician can save them. Those jobs are gone, and will continue to dwindle. I do hope that renewable energy companies can make products in these areas. Seeing Tesla/Solar City/Panasonic build a factory in Buffalo is a good start.

 

[flashflood]

This is a great synopsis of American prosperity history. I laugh as I watch the debates. The President isn't a CEO and doesn't have the power to do most of the things the candidates promise.

This is American economic history in a nutshell:

(1) Government creates obstacles to progress.
(2) Private enterprise finds a way to overcome them.
(3) Government takes credit.

To cite just a few recent examples:

Government opposes new drilling, oil companies invent fracking, government takes credit for clean natural gas and low oil prices.

Government bails out GM and bans direct sales of Tesla, Tesla fights and wins, government takes credit for record EV sales.

Government protects taxi monopoly, Uber finds a loophole and consumers love it, government ... just wait, they'll find a way to take credit for making Uber "safe" instead of the "wild west" that it was before they came along to regulate, finally putting an end to the rivers of blood.

 

[SageBrush]

In the second debate, Trump said he was in favor of renewable energy. .

He also says that climate change is a Chinese Conspiracy and a hoax.

Draw the obvious conclusion.

 

[wdolson]

This is a great synopsis of American prosperity history. I laugh as I watch the debates. The President isn't a CEO and doesn't have the power to do most of the things the candidates promise.

I have also been wondering the same things you posted in your last 2 paragraphs. I feel terrible for people in coal country. They believe, (or at least hope), a politician can save them. Those jobs are gone, and will continue to dwindle. I do hope that renewable energy companies can make products in these areas. Seeing Tesla/Solar City/Panasonic build a factory in Buffalo is a good start.

There is a very good reason that plant is in Buffalo. There are two products that need to be made in the dark: solar panels and photographic film. Kodak employed a large number of blind people to make their film in Rochester, but a lot of those people have been out of work since Kodak fell on hard times. Building a solar plant nearby taps into that pool of skilled, blind manufacturing workers.

Not only are those people perfect for that industry, it also gets Solar City/Tesla credits for hiring handicapped workers.

This is American economic history in a nutshell:

(1) Government creates obstacles to progress.
(2) Private enterprise finds a way to overcome them.
(3) Government takes credit.

To cite just a few recent examples:

Government opposes new drilling, oil companies invent fracking, government takes credit for clean natural gas and low oil prices.

Government bails out GM and bans direct sales of Tesla, Tesla fights and wins, government takes credit for record EV sales.

Government protects taxi monopoly, Uber finds a loophole and consumers love it, government ... just wait, they'll find a way to take credit for making Uber "safe" instead of the "wild west" that it was before they came along to regulate, finally putting an end to the rivers of blood.

Except fracking has been around since the late 70s. When my sister was working on the geology of the Kern River Oil Field in California in the 1980s fracking was a well established technique for getting the oil out. And the government under GW Bush was very much "drill baby drill". There was an upsurge in drilling permits, which when combined with fracking in shale formations created an oil and gas boom. So it really was a change in government policy that led to the boom. Though now that oil prices have gone down and there is a natural gas glut, a lot of those wells are shut off because it's not economical to produce them.

The government both federal and some states has also set up tax incentives that encourage people to buy EVs, so they do have a hand in encouraging EV sales. The levels of government are also in play too, the blocks to direct Tesla sales are on state levels and the federal government has nothing to do with the blocks, though I believe the laws blocking direct sales will end up in the federal courts eventually. Direct sales is also a separate issue from EVs. Fiat-Chrysler could decide tomorrow they are done with dealers and decide to sell their ICEs directly to the public and would face the same battles Tesla have fought.

As for taxis, the local regulations of taxi services is a mix of cronyism and a move for safety. When people take some form of transport it is in the interest of everyone that it's safe. The government has been in the business of regulating various forms of transport for a long time. It's the case in every developed country. Where transport is not well regulated by the government, a lot more people die in accidents than in places where it is regulated. Sometimes the regulations are ineffective or don't go far enough, but for the most part the regulations are a good thing.

Uber got around the cronyism in the taxi regulation and opened up the industry. When the regulations for taxis were put in place, there was a need for safety as a lot of people were getting harmed by unsafe and unscrupulous taxi drivers. Uber has centralized the payment system so drivers can't screw customers, but that's only possible due to technology advancements in the last few years. Uber's success has shown the cronyism has become the primary motivation in the taxi regulation business and that should be revisited in many areas.

 

[Weezer Fan]

There is a very good reason that plant is in Buffalo. There are two products that need to be made in the dark: solar panels and photographic film. Kodak employed a large number of blind people to make their film in Rochester, but a lot of those people have been out of work since Kodak fell on hard times. Building a solar plant nearby taps into that pool of skilled, blind manufacturing workers.

Not only are those people perfect for that industry, it also gets Solar City/Tesla credits for hiring handicapped workers.

Did not know. Thanks for sharing, it is very interesting.

 

[Jack6591]

While I agree with Jill Stein on almost every issue, I will vote for Hillary Clinton since she possesses the strongest political capital to enact environmentally sound legislation. Taking this a step further, I intend to campaign for and advocate Democrats across the board to provide President Clinton with the support she will need to address climate change.