| Micele |
27 februari 2017 17:28 |
Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door De schoofzak
(Bericht 8391474)
Ik vind het ook verkeerd om te spreken van subsidies aan elektrische wagens.
Die krijgen (als ik het goed begrepen heb) just niks geen subsidies. Ze moeten alleen maar minder taks betalen.
Straks gaan ze nog zeggen dat ik subsidies krijg voor mijne velo, omdat ik daar geen wegentaks voor moet betalen.
.
|
Fossiele wagens krijgen nog altijd veel meer subsidies dan electrische wagens...
En dat is evenzo voor stroomprodructie uit fossiele bronnen die #volgens IAE > dubbel zoveel directe subsidies krijgen tov stroom uit hernieuwbare bronnen. En dit nog zonder de gezondheids- en milieuschade mee in rekening te brengen, want dan is het nog veel meer (zie IMF-studie):
Citaat:
https://electrek.co/2016/12/19/fossi...rgy-subsidies/
Fossil-fuel subsidies dropped sharply by 35%, still more than double the money spent on renewable energy subsidies
Fred Lambert - Dec. 19th 2016
In its latest ‘World Energy outlook’ report, the International Energy Agency (IEA) found that fossil-fuel subsidies dropped sharply by 35% last year – from almost $500 billion in 2014 to $325 billion in 2015. It’s a significant improvement, but the industry remains largely over-subsidized relative to the renewable energy industry, which receives about half the monetary value in subsidies – $150 billion.
The #IEA wrote in the paper’s executive summary (embedded below):
“The value of fossil-fuel consumption subsidies dropped in 2015 to $325 billion, from almost $500 billion the previous year, reflecting lower fossil-fuel prices but also a subsidy reform process that has gathered momentum in several countries.”
It’s important to note here that we are only talking about direct financial incentives. To this day, the fossil fuel industry is still strongly subsidized by taxpayers’ money even before accounting for the cost they make society incur due to health and climate impacts of the emissions they produced.
An IMF study published last year found that the fossil fuel industry was receiving the equivalent of ~$5 trillion in subsidies per year when accounting for those impacts.
In other words, if governments globally would remove all financial subsidies for both fossil fuels and renewable energies, the latter would be the one gaining a competitive advantage, but the former would still be the most subsidized due to the unpriced externalities.
Several renewable energy leaders have suggested removing subsidies in both sectors. Tesla CEO Elon Musk suggested it two months ago after Robert Murray, a climate-change denier and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation, one of the biggest coal mining firms in the US, called Tesla a “fraud” for receiving subsidies:
Citaat:
Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
Real fraud going on is denial of climate science. As for "subsidies", Tesla gets pennies on dollar vs coal. How about we both go to zero?
4:23 PM - 10 Oct 2016
13,200 13,200 Retweets 29,501 29,501 likes
|
As for the renewable energy subsidies, the IEA wrote in the report:
“Subsidies to renewables are around $150 billion today, some 80% of which are directed to the power sector, 18% to transport and around 1% to heat”
The agency expects that fossil-fuel subsidies will keep declining and eventually catch up with renewable energy subsidies, which should peak at $240 billion in the 2030s and start declining from there.
Here’s the executive summary of the report:
|
Nu dat de electrische wagens langzaam komen opzetten zal de fossiele lobby (olie- en biofuelindustrie) alles proberen de industrie van electrische wagens en hernieuwbare stroomproductie in een slecht daglicht proberen te stellen wat te voorspellen was. Ze vrezen immers om hun zwaar gesubsidieerde kassa... :
Citaat:
https://electrek.co/2017/02/24/elect...ofuel-efforts/
Electric vehicle incentives are under attack by joint efforts from heavily subsidized oil & biofuel industries
Fred Lambert - Feb. 24th 2017
The biofuel and oil industries, which were both heavily subsidized over the years, are now working together to lobby against electric vehicle incentives under the pretext that they are seeking “a level playing field”.
Their respective main lobbying groups made the announcement this week.
The new alliance is somewhat odd since the two industries have battled over the use of biofuel in gasoline for years, but now they found a common enemy: electric vehicles.
Following the recent growth of the electric vehicle market, the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) have aligned their efforts to try to influence legislation in order to eliminate electric vehicle incentives.
They want a “level playing field,” said RFA President Bob Dinneen at an annual meeting this week via Reuters.
Over the years and still today, the corn/biofuel and the oil industries have been heavily subsidized both directly through tax breaks, but also indirectly through their trillion-dollar impacts on the public health and environment.
|
Ze zullen de electrische wagenindustrie niet gerust laten:
Citaat:
https://electrek.co/2017/02/27/fossi...-vehicle-fees/
Fossil fuel industry is pushing for new electric vehicle fees in several states, says report
Fred Lambert - Feb. 27th 2017
Concrete efforts to slow down electric vehicle adoption are taking form. Last week, we reported on the oil and biofuel industries forming an alliance to lobby against electric vehicle incentives and now the same industries are being linked to other efforts to undermine EVs.
A new report links the fossil fuel industry to a series of new legislations being introduced in several states in order to impose fees on electric vehicles.
Those yearly fees are being introduced under the pretext to make up for lost revenue from the gas tax. Several states, like Michigan, have already implemented them, but since the start of the year, six more states have introduced legislations to do the same: Indiana, South Carolina, Kansas, Tennessee, New Hampshire, and Montana.
Some of those fees can cost electric vehicle drivers up to $180 per year.
As we explain in a recent piece ‘Yearly “EV fees” to replace lost gas tax revenue are less reasonable than they seem‘, those fees are misguided and they certainly are not compensating for lost gas tax revenue.
Using the same principle as the gas tax, those fees should be applied to the cost of electricity, which is already taxed. And if the goal is to have EVs pay for the damages they do on public roads, the same idea should be applied to the damages gas-powered cars do to the environment, which is actually much more measurable than the damage passenger cars do on roads.
Most lost revenue from the gas tax are related to the increase in fuel efficiency over the last decade and not to the few hundred thousand EVs on the roads out of the more than 250 million vehicles in the US today.
Now where things are getting interesting is that those new efforts to introduce those electric vehicles fees are being linked to the fossil fuel industries and especially, the multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign against electric vehicles launched by the Koch brothers last year.
We didn’t know for sure what legislation those lobbying efforts would lead to, but it seems like we could have a winner.
In a recent report, Gina Coplon-Newfield, Director of Sierra Club’s Electric Vehicles Initiative, linked the recent money being spent by those groups to the legislation being introduced this year:
“Reportedly, for more than a year, Koch Industries has spent nearly $10 million dollars, and plans to do so every year, on a campaign to boost petroleum-based transportation fuels and attack government support for electric vehicles. This campaign was presumably created because of the risk EVs place on the oil and coal industry. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a right-wing state legislation machine funded by the Koch brothers and several other multinational corporations, introduced in December of 2015 a resolution to discourage states from providing subsidies for EVs at their States and Nation Policy Summit.”
|
|
