Yes, of course I know where the cost is.  It's a sad indictment on the whole car industry that it seems to need to 'make people feel better'... and at added cost.

When the global automobile industry has seen 'better days' in general...and the US one is at best in receivership it's probably time to rethink the whole industry dynamics....whether petrol-powered or electric...

No, it's not Communism. Our taxes are currently used on a variety of gov't programs that are deemed necessary for the public good. (e.g. bridges and roads), as well as the tax incentives given to a variety of industries, and entitlement programs. It's only communism if it's something you disagree with.

And we do decide things collectively through our elected officials. And our gov't is a Republic, not Communist.

As far as taking wealth, I never suggested anyone's after tax income should be divided up and directly redistributed to others based on need. If you're suggesting that we shouldn't have to pay taxes, then I don't know how the gov't would be able to operate.

As to you last point, the majority of people can't afford to purchase an electric car. That is the primary reason why the demand is low. 

The maths of viability is simple enough.

Number of available charge cycles X mileage covered per charge X cost of charge + cost of battery

vs

Number of miles covered / MPG X cost per gallon.

It gets a little trickier when you also factor in energy-source production/distribution/storage method.

Needless to say it's at least HOPED the electric option is the better....commercially AND environmentally...

That's a flawed argument using a political definition born of a particular movement.  The government subsidizing electric cars isn't big c Communism.  It's what communists do when they can't pull off their revolution.

When the socialists started losing their revolutions, they gave up on the whole idea and just started adding things to what the government was supposed to tax people for.  You end up in the same place, it just happens peace meal.  Most of the supposedly capitalist societies are more socialist than not at this point.

First Brad has to pay for food stamps and welfare checks, then he gets to pay for the extra cost of everyone's electric car so they don't have to buy a gas guzzler.  It's all the same thing, economic redistribution.  Eventually, they either get a revolt or the progressive tax system is so crippling that the economy fails just like it does under communism and you get a reset.  I expect I'll get to live through it.

Politics is a prohibited topic in this section of the forums.

So far the debate has remained apolitical.  Let's keep it that way...

Well to be fair, we're discussing how we might end up with potential solutions to AGW. 

And someone suggested that if society decides it needs electric cars then the government should take money from people and redistribute it so we can have it.

Now we have people who don't think that's communism. Maybe they're right. Maybe it's just a little bit of communism? I mean, what's the big deal? Just a car. In fact, maybe we should just make the cars free. After all, we need them and it's for our own good.  Anyone who has a problem with that is just being paranoid...

I am sure there is some serious math and serious studies and serious theories all ready to be put into a paper right this very second. I absolutely concede that. 

Yes. For decades there have been a lot of discussions, debates, meetings, consultations, proposals and other important, serious, academic endeavors.

I remember reading this at the time.  However, they are expensive compared to...what? 

Would you like, in your own words, right here, give a ball park figure on what it would cost to bring worldwide Co2 production back to say 1991 levels? And if we did that, what would be, in your own words, right here, the projected environmental impact based on the consensus in the IPCC report?

I agree. And I don't mean to imply that I favor releasing coal dust into the air or building giant CO2 scrubbers across the world.  My point is that even those who contributed to the IPCC reports over the years have conceded that to actually do anything measurable about world CO2 production (ignoring the many other things we're doing such as deforestation, methane production, etc.) would require immense economic sacrifice worldwide and IF we did that, we would only have a marginal affect -- according to them.  

So let's get down the brass tacks on the economics. Since you are familiar with the serious economic studies, how much would it cost to bring worldwide CO2 production down to 1991 levels and what would the impact be?

For fucks sake, I just went over this...

The US does not subsidize fossil fuels.  Period.  It's political bullshit.  It's like saying they subsidize your office supplies because your business expenses are deducted from your revenue before you pay taxes on your profit.

They write a tax code to specifically screw oil companies, and then let them use a slightly less screwed depreciation schedule when the wells turn less of a profit than the bleeding taxes eat up.  There's no subsidy, it's not even a tax break.  They pay the exact same amount of taxes they would have paid were it worth the bother of keeping the rig operating without the accelerated depreciation schedule.

What is it about electric cars you don't like? The gov't takes money away from people (taxes) and uses it for all sorts of things.

Is that communism? Then why is it communism to use some of the taxes collected to subsidize electric cars?

The gov't uses tax dollars to subsidize a variety of industries. So, why is subsidizing an electric car manufacturer so different from your perspective?

And I never said we should give electric cars away for free. How you extrapolated that from my post, is beyond me. 

Giving a budding industry some breathing room until it can ramp up and operate profitably on it's own can potentially lead to more jobs, higher wages and contribute positively to the economy. Short term pain for long term gain.

And it's a win-win situation if it helps both the shareholders and the environment.

For crying out loud. I HAVE AN ELECTRIC CAR. I obviously like electric cars.

What I don't like is the idea of people becoming comfortable with (to quote) "If society decides it needs electric cars then the government should subsidize them."

That is what set off this particular tangent.  Such a casual, hand wave at what amounts to "if the majority of americans decide they want something, anything really, then the government should just procure it for them by taking money from other people and giving it to them."

It's the casualness that comes from the kind of people who would say "And why should rich people get to keep their money?"  It's horrifying (to me anyway).

Sure it's communism.  People act like this is some sort of tradition. It's baffling. The idea of the government taking stuff from one person to give to another based on ability and need is a modern - post Marx - thing.

I'm not suggesting we bring back Work Houses or eliminate welfare. It just shocks me to see how quickly we've come from giving surplus food to the poor to casually discussing giving people electric cars.

So by subsidziing you just mean a little communism but not a LOT of communism? I mean, why stop with just a little? Why not go the whole way and just have everything that society decides it "needs" to simply be provided.

That statement you give is very similar to one given in Atlas Shrugged.  We should call it the anti-dog-eat-dog law.

After we pass that law, we should go around breaking windows to create more economic activity.

"However, in a paper published earlier this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers found that trying to scrub the air is much more expensive than keeping it from getting dirty in the first place."

I'm certainly not familiar with all the studies, and I am not familiar with any study that makes a serious effort to arrive at that number.  There would also be a hell of a lot of uncertainty in the number.

Hrm, this is a major issue that I haven't gotten into, but this might be the appropriate time.

The claims of doom and gloom for the economy are almost certainly overstated.

Certainly switching to a greener economy will cause great economic change.  And every time you see great economic change, you see the old guard whining to high hell about how the economy will suffer.  I mean, when computers come around, look at all the people who complained about how many people would be put out of work.  You can go back to so many major inventions and see the same thing.

Switching to a greener economy creates a lot of jobs too.  Now, I'm not saying that it will completely offset the economic hurdles that will come about.  By no means am I saying that at all.  But a lot of the doomsayers just concentrate on the negatives, while not adding on some of the entire new industries that appear in the process.

Anyway, the price has to be paid sometime, and the earlier you start paying, the lower the price.

So what is that price? I mean that seriously. You have alluded to various studies on the matter. Ok. What is the cost? What is the benefit? Specifically. No links to 1200 page studies. Dumb it down for us yokels.  Bottom line it.