At least the subsidies to fossil fuel companies are designed to spur production, and lower importation - remember the oil embargo? From a macro economic policy, it reduces money leaving the US to pay for oil. Had we not provided the handouts to spur production, would the US have had more money flowing out than the cost of the subsidies? (Global warming aside) The subsidies seem like smart macro economic policy, smart geo political policy, smart military policy. That being said, as long as the US is a net importer of oil, the subsidies make sense. The US is no longer a net importer and the fossil fuel subsidies should be re-evaluated. Notice that if the US were still a net importer of fossil fuels, then the same macro economic policy justifying fossil fuel subsidies could be applied to electric cars (a car is expected to have a service life of 200,000 miles, on average getting 25mpg, requiring 8000 gallons of fuel. Those 8000 gallons required importation of 190 barrels of oil (yes I know you don’t get perfect conversion of crude oil to gasoline - I’m just too lazy to look it up), at $60/barrel = $11,400). Using this logic, a subsidy of <$11,400 per electric car made sense even if the cars were made in Japan or Korea. Each electric car resulted in US not importing $11,400 of oil from a country we were previously extorted by. But now that the US is a net oil producer, the equation isn’t as strong. Yes, an electric car prevents the US from consuming those 190 barrels domestically and provides for greater exports, but we are no longer economically dependent upon the other oil producers. The macro economic policy that should result in lower fossil fuel subsidies should also result in lower electric car subsidies. Of course Hubbert’s Peak does still apply to individual wells (and it will again even after fracking) and the US could slip into a net importer again. Electric cars shelter the US from the shock of a future oil embargoes and subsidies should remain (even above the 200,000 limit per auto manufacturer) until Electric cars are competitive without subsidies (I’m taking Carolla class, not BMW 7-Series).
Now, how does wind and solar have the same geo political benefit? We can always burn coal or build nukes. Subsidies to those industries are dependent upon the assumption of investing to prevent climate change. It doesn’t have an immediate economic benefit to me. As much as I believe in climate change, I expect the worst impact in my lifetime is a higher AC bill. Without children, why would I care?