Good but unilateral.

If subsidies for electric cars are removed, then subsidies for ICE cars should be removed.

If subsidies for solar electric generation are removed, then subsidies to coal electric generation should be removed.

Don't forget the tariffs on imported ICE trucks and SUVs.

What subsidies do ICE cars have that electrics don’t?

Cheap extraction leases on public land.

Huge military investment in oil-producing countries and regions.

Building and transport codes built around the needs and technologies of dinosaur burners.

Lack of significant restrictions on emissions.

I don't think you're gonna get back the sum of the decades of subsidies of various sorts that cut the cost of technology developments.

(yes, I know they aren't really "dinosaur" burners but alge burners)

Tarrifs are also a tax.

Indeed but this was responding to a request for a list of subsidies for internal combustion.

Petroleum industry gets tons of subsidies. I think there's a reddit out there somewhere with a list of the tax deductions that are specifically for Big Oil. It's like 2 dozen or so.

And that's just the stuff that's out in the open.

All of that subsidizes any ICE car.

While I disagree that oil subsidies equate to ICE subsidies, I’d appreciate a link if you think it has good information.

I’ve attempted to research this issue before, but the information I’ve found is very poor. A common problem is grossly inflated figures that include deductions that apply to every business.

Also, I haven’t found a resource that accounts for the full tax load on oil. For example, electrics are not subject to the sizable per-gallon taxes on gas and diesel, which means ICE cars are subsidizing electric’s road usage.

The oil depletion allowance (curtailed since its glory days) was a major one, at some point allowing the deduction to continue way past the original well investment was recuperated.

As far as the modern state of tax incentives - https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/... and discussion of the current carveouts https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-the-oil-and-gas-industry-s...

Not against this. Ethanol subsidy has caused a lot of environmental damage. Wind subsidy has created a crisis as there is no money to make repairs. Solar can stand on it's own.

Just as soon as oil and gas stands on its own (it doesn't) and correctly prices in the negative externalities (it doesn't). Then the free market can knock itself out.

I imagine Trump will exempt corn farmers from this, unfortunately.

Clickbait. FTFA

This story corrects from “will end” throughout, to make clear the White House cannot end congressionally mandated subsidies on its own, and adds quote

So, so, so dumb. Dumb decision. You should subsidise renewables and tax all others for the externalities.

What are the externalities of the renewables?

Perhaps in fairness it's best to worry about that when it's too late, considering non-renewables have enjoyed that luxury.

Space usage and maintenance. Modifications of electric grid. Rare metal use.

Compared to health and environmental damage done by mining, gas and oil prospecting, it's cheap, but not as cheap as nuclear.

What makes you think nuclear has less severe externalities?

And I am not even including in my considerations that countries have totally mismanaged the storage in the past (e.g. UK dumping it into the ocean, Germany dumping it into an old mine etc.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_m...

What about petroleum and natural gas?

This is only one half of the story, there is also the export drive going on to force LNG and other hydrocarbon products that 'fracking' is delivering on the rest of the world. Lame NATO friends of America such as Poland have to buy expensive LNG from Uncle Sam instead of their Russian neighbours.

The same thing happens with that current hotspot of Ukraine where these policies have led to a very cold winter for the people that live there. They are being 'forced' to by that coal that Trump has insisted on getting dug up from the ground, a fuel nobody wants any more (even though coal fires are so nice to have).

Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, the move to them is unstoppable due to this price advantage. Much progress is unseen, in a world where people are so fixated on being negative and nit-picking those building out the carbon neutral future are quietly getting on with it. They don't need the State Department and the Pentagon to bully others into buying windfarms. They also don't need naysayers that claim windfarms are too difficult to maintain or other hysterical nonsense about 'China and rare earth metals', 'lithium and polluting wars', 'the power is never there when it is needed' and all of that tripe. Funny how some people can't collaborate and have to have hissy fits just so they can stay stuck in the dirty fuel past. Trump is not the problem here, pettiness from weak minded people who believe what they read in newspapers is the bigger downer.

The 1% don't care how money is made (who it kills or destroys the planet) so long that it flows. An existential threat from externalities is just another new inelastic market to exploit.

> have to buy expensive LNG from Uncle Sam instead of their Russian neighbours

which has absolutely zero externalities