Yes. People imposing costs through pollution or whatever without paying for that matters. (It also matters that they may be doing irreversible damage, irreparable at any cost.)
It's just not called a subsidy and is irrelevant to the point that putting electricity in your car versus gas looks good from a pure "cost to my monthly bottom line" point of view partly because of residential rate subsidies that allow poor people to turn the lights on.
You're not getting gasoline from Big Oil Co below what it costs to produce.
You're getting residential power below production cost from Local Power Co. For now. That loophole will likely be closed, at least partially, as EV's become ubiquitous.
Do you have something to back up that bit about residential power being below cost? I was unaware of this and can't find anything about it.
I know that there are times when that's the case, because I pay a flat rate for electricity even though production costs spike heavily during periods of high demand. But on average, I thought it covered costs. Especially since I'm still paying that flat rate in the middle of the night when production costs are far lower.
If you don't like calling the ability to pollute a "subsidy" then fine, but I don't see how it's irrelevant. Part of the reason driving a gas car looks so cheap is because you're allowed to impose a significant chunk of the costs on other people.
It's just not called a subsidy and is irrelevant to the point that putting electricity in your car versus gas looks good from a pure "cost to my monthly bottom line" point of view partly because of residential rate subsidies that allow poor people to turn the lights on.
You're not getting gasoline from Big Oil Co below what it costs to produce.
You're getting residential power below production cost from Local Power Co. For now. That loophole will likely be closed, at least partially, as EV's become ubiquitous.