Pirate's Cove

But, not because it simply would have driven more rich people who create jobs and businesses out of the state. Nope. Californians were initially enthused to slap another tax on the rich

Californians Don’t Want to Tax Rich People to Help Make EVs Affordable

It looks as if the state of California is going to have to find another route to making EVs more affordable. Residents across the state voted down Proposition 30, which would’ve increased income taxes on anyone making over $2 million so EVs could be more affordable for lower-income residents.

Here’s how it would have worked. Residents making over $2 million would have seen their income tax increase by 1.75 percent. That tax revenue in turn would have gone to EV subsidy programs that would have made EVs more affordable for buyers, namely low-income residents. Estimates said that it would have raised some $100 billion over a 20-year period with $3 billion to $5 billion raised annually.

How has that worked out for other tax the rich schemes, such as the carbon taxes?

Initially, the proposition was popular. Summer polls showed two-thirds of state residents in support of it. But this whole election cycle has shown that you shouldn’t always trust polls. Things shifted when critics came out against the proposition, the biggest of which was Governor Gavin Newsom. In a surprising move, he aligned with state Republicans, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Teacher Association in coming out against prop 30. The reason? Ride-share companies.

Newsom called prop 30 a handout funded by the public for Uber and Lyft. The ride-sharing companies are under a state regulated deadline requiring that 90 percent of their drivers miles be zero emission by the end of the decade. Because of this Lyft dumped $48 million into pushing the proposition. Ultimately though the prop failed. As of November 9, 59 percent of California had voted against it.

So, Lyft wanted this because of Government mandating something, then Government decides they don’t want to do anything that would have (potentially) helped. What’s mostly going to happen by 2030 is that Lyft and Uber will stop operating in the People’s Republik Of California.

Some experts are concerned about what this means for similar initiatives across the country. The main concern is EV affordability for low-income residents. As EV prices continue to increase it looks as if more and more low-income people will be left behind in the EV transition simply because they can’t afford the purchase.

The more subsidies, the higher the costs. Welcome to reality. Low income folks will only be able to afford used, high mile, older EVs, which will come with big problems from use and batteries that do not hold as much charge.

And even with subsidies, as Vox pointed out, “EVs may not be affordable enough for most until manufacturers drop prices much further.” Some may argue that manufacturers should just make EVs cheaper, but that’s hard for them to do as their manufacturing costs rise. Some have already admitted that cheap EVs are a long way off. Others may think that the government shouldn’t be subsiding people’s car purchases. As we get closer to gas vehicle bans, one thing is clear: this whole EV transition is turning out to be a lot harder than many thought it would be.

Easy for Vox to say. There are associated costs. Period. Manufacturers aren’t going to sell them for a loss.

Read: Bummer: PRC’s Tax The Rich For EVs Proposition Fails »

In this case, it’s not the businesses who are being resistant (but, you can bet most aren’t interested in dumping much of their earnings into a scheme to help the third word when there’s no return on investment): it’s the climate cult groups, who do not seem interested in using their own money

US plan to tap businesses for green finance meets resistance

When it comes to helping poor nations cope with climate change, the United States government left its wallet at home. So it hopes its friend, big business, can help pick up the tab.

Unable to persuade Congress or the American public to spend billions of dollars more a year in climate financial aid, the U.S. government is trying to make it easier for private corporations to send cash to the developing world in exchange for looking green at home.

The plan, announced Wednesday by U.S. climate envoy John Kerry at the COP27 climate summit in Egypt, essentially amounts to tapping private funds to finance developing nations’ transition to clean energy by selling “high quality” carbon credits to companies trying to make their carbon emissions “net zero.”

“Our intention is to put the carbon market to work, to deploy capital otherwise unemployable, to speed the transition from dirty to clean power,” and replace dirty coal-fired power plants with renewable energy sources, Kerry said at a launch event.

But the idea faced stiff resistance from environmental groups and climate experts, who said it would give polluters a license to keep polluting. It came a day after the United Nations warned about shady carbon credits that businesses count on to meet their net-zero targets.

Underscoring the opposition, an activist heckled Kerry as he launched the plan, accusing him of “promoting false solutions,” before security guards pushed him away. At this year’s COP summit, poorer nations have lambasted wealthier ones for not putting up enough money to finance their so-called green transition.

Of course, China is spending a lot of money to build coal power plants in 3rd world nations. Has anyone bothered asking the citizens of those countries what kind of power they want?

Kerry’s proposal is dubbed the Energy Transition Accelerator and is backed by two major philanthropies, The Rockefeller Foundation and the Bezos Earth Fund. They hope it could unlock $100 billion or more in financing for green projects by 2030. Kerry said he wants to have it up and running by next year’s COP meeting.

Details about how it will work are still sparse, but under the plan, verified greenhouse gas emission reductions would be generated that could then be sold as carbon credits. Kerry said there’s been “strong interest” to buy them from corporations including PepsiCo and Microsoft.

So, it’s a big scheme being run by the government. How much money will those two funds be spreading around of their own money? Oh, hey, how much money will be coming from the company Kerry married into, the Heinz Corporation? They had $6.51 billion in earnings so far in 2022 (net was $432 million. Perhaps the Warmists should understand the difference when yammering about oil company profits). This really is all about transfering Other People’s wealth for the Beliefs of Elites, most of whom took long fossil fueled trips to Egypt

Paying for Climate Damages Isn’t Charity

…

The United States and European Union must get behind this movement now. Specific details on how much money, where it comes from, who gets it and what qualifies take time to work out. But what’s critical at the current climate conference is that wealthy countries agree to a process, with clear deadlines, to pay for the damage.

It’s not a matter of charity. Taking action is firmly in rich countries’ own interests. As climate change bears down, more factories and ports around the world — the ones that wealthy nations rely on for their phones, car parts, fast fashion and even food — will close, devastating global supply chains. Food prices will rise. More people will be displaced, leading to additional migration crises. Conflict will grow more likely as people fight over land and water. The repercussions will destabilize even the most robust economies. Preventing that outcome now, by financing recovery from climate damages, will ensure a more stable future for everyone.

See? According to the NY Times’ Ani Dasgupta (you can read the whole non-paywalled opinion piece here), it’s all about giving 3rd world nations strings free money because the 1st world owes them. Sure looks a redistribution scheme. How much is the NY Times giving?

Read: Biden Plan To Tap Business To Pay For His Climate Doom Plan “Meets Resistance” »