Don't forget carbon credits.
Tesla scraps low-cost car plans amid fierce Chinese EV competition
- Thread starter SC Maintenance
- Start date
you are so right, easy to forget and it was only around 2020 when Tesla became profitable and it was due to carbon credits only.
You know the answer to this. It's why at many points in history tariffs have been applied to Chinese goods. People have less of a problem with promoting US goods. Obviously there are many that aren't pleased about the EV tax credit(including me), but that's an easier pill to swallow because it's at least supporting a US made product.
They wouldn't be a thing if car companies were making efficient vehicles. It would take all wind out of the sails of the carbon credit as a CAFE offset.
This is a misconception. Tesla is not successful in making a profit with their cars.
After 10+ years their first truly profitable year wasnt until 2021 and due to China sales. Someone else jogged my memory as in 2020 the first ever year Tesla turned a TINY profit was due to not making cars, but to carbon credits supplied by the USA taxpayers, those carbon credits continue today and we continue to prop up Tesla with USA taxpayers subsidizing 15 to 20% of each car sold for people who are eligible for the tax credit.
Without the USA taxpayer, Tesla may not even exist. This supports some of what I am saying.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/26/...ings-revenue-profit-credits-emissions-bitcoin
Currently things have gone flat ... (not in these figures are the first quarter of 2024 which is not going to be pretty being sales went negative, 1st quarter financial results to be released 4-23-24. It's going to be interesting!
Source = https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/net-income
Last edited:
China has been dumping goods below cost on our nation for 30 years. Now when its there beloved EV's they grow a spine. How convenient.
It is a thing, because an authority decided to supplement using taxpayer money and the thing is as posted, it is reality that the only reason Tesla made money the first year was because of it and to this day continues to enrich the shareholders of the company, though to a lessor degree. I just dont believe in dictatorships, but that is just me. How about we make the authorities efficient instead? 33 trillion and counting.
Without the carbon credit the ICE car market already be one foot in the grave. They profit from it too. You can't lay this all on an EV manufacturer. The government allowed the carbon credit program to allow ICE manufacturers to "pay for their sins" so to speak by offsetting their misses in CAFE. Tesla wouldn't be able to earn carbon credits if the industry was meeting projections because likely the program would have never existed if they did.
Huh? Thermal efficiency is reaching its theoretical max. New ICE and hybrid vehicles are ridiculously efficient.
The eMPG calculations are Bogus - well documented for more than a decade.
The government shouldn't pick winners and loosers in a market that has existed for a century and is highly efficient. With all the real problems we have, the best they have to do is create more.
That's an argument we lost before it started. I don't disagree with you. It's also allowing the majority of the market to make vehicles that don't meet standard by buying their way out of it. The beloved American vehicle standard wouldn't exist without it. Seems like holding everyone to a similar standard would be beneficial. That's where lobbyists come in.
This one is getting a bit racy to be honest. There's just not much that deals with money that doesn't get dirty and dishonest though.
For massive vehicles. The vehicles didn't have to keep getting bigger at the same time. The engines are as efficient as they've ever been for sure. That's not the problem. Most are moving barges though because of the CAFE requirements are more lenient on stuff that can classify as a light truck or larger. In most cases even a small AWD crossover can classify as a light truck these days. It's beneficial to the car companies to make larger vehicles for this reason. We all lose.
True. Except who can realistically argue that a model 3 is a replacement for a Tahoe or F150. It isn't. So we should be penalizing those for building larger vehicles, not subsidizing EV's which makes no sense by your argument either.
Except who would that hurt? Oh yes, the legacy 3. So we crawl even deeper into the swamp.
So now you know the rest of the story as Paul Harvey would say.
Why is an EV car replacing a truck always the argument? It's making an argument that no one thinks is legitimate. People complain vehicles are more expensive now than ever before. We lost small cars in the process. That's what is killing the affordable car. There aren't many good small cars. There's the absolute price point cars and then premium ones and nothing in between. If anything the EV existing is the closest thing we have to saving cars themselves. There's plenty of trucks for those that want them. The double standard has basically killed the small car and put people in larger vehicles that while more efficient than previous vehicles of that size has more people driving those large vehicles because that's where the market is. It's a net neutral. It's isn't progress.
The CAFE standards shouldn't be so one sided. That's the argument. Cars don't exist without EVs to offset them. Trucks exist by calling tall hatchbacks(crossovers) light trucks. I'd love to see what would happen if it was the same standard across the board. Maybe it would mean more EVs. I don't think so though. I think it would create more development of efficient cars because that would be the easier target to hit.
Get a truck big enough and it doesn't have to hit any metric. It's exempt.
Last edited:
JHZR2
Staff member
Domestically? With domestic sourced foils and powders?
Did you even read what I said? I said subsidizing EV's isn't going to stop bigger vehicles. If you want bigger vehicles to be penalized you need to do something other than subsidize EV's.
Get rid of all subsidies. Get rid of Cafe. Triple the gas tax - put the gas tax in a separate infrastructure fund controlled by a separate board of trustees - the trustees are appointed by the states which only makes sense because all infrastructure is local. Lock DC out of it - totally - like social security was supposed to be before they stole that.
Let the vehicle manufacturing market control itself. Problem solved. Want to drive a Tahoe, you get to pay for my bridge.
Will never happen, makes too much sense.
Yes , in Michigan. I don't know if the foils/powders are domestically sourced.
100%.
Yes , in Michigan. I don't know if the foils/powders are domestically sourced.
I think the problem here is just where you stand as an individual in opinions. No clear winner.
I think I as well as a couple of the conversations in this thread stand.
You referred to vehicles that don’t meet the standard, well I would have to ask what standard is that other than an agenda based on the desire to achieve a goal which is questionable at best, and I think more about control over the population and corporations.
One glance at the budget deficit clearly shows the people we are dealing with that are regulating over us
There is nothing wrong with modern gasoline vehicles in the United States and the emissions they create which are negligible in a nation of 350 million people compared to all the other sources of admissions in the world. The only reason to tighten up more is nothing more than a power or power trip.
I cannot agree with triple the gas tax, given the history of raised taxes is they will not spend it on what it is designated for but just blow it on whatever special agenda policy is on the table today.
