1) your graph is from the Environmental Law Institute. Sounds like a very unbiased source
If you can't discredit the data, try to discredit the source based on its name, huh? This from the guy who modified quotes from an article to suit his purpose.
2) their subsidies also include natural gas and coal. Really? That effects the price of gasoline?
What's important here? The dollar amount, or the fact that oil companies benefit from subsidies exactly like you are deriding Tesla for?
"subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit mentioned above)
Oil producers successfully lobbied for inclusion in a 2004 bill that gave the beleaguered manufacturing sector a special tax break designed to discourage outsourcing of jobs. For a number of reasons—including the capital-intensive nature of oil production, the relative mobility of investments, and of course the level of profitability—there are vast differences between the oil industry and traditional U.S. manufacturing. As Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, has explained: “Congress was trying to solve a manufacturing issue in this country” by enacting the deduction and included oil producers “almost inadvertently.”
Tesla has benefitted from 2.4 billion in battery studies
That is the cost of the entire project, that is not how much Tesla received. Why don't you break it down and see how much went to other car manufacturers?
Besides, these subsidies are akin to how taxpayer dollars helped develop computer chip technology and the internet itself, which thousands of companies have directly benefited from. There is nothing special about these subsidies. Every industry from alternative energy, to oil, to tech, to agriculture are the recipients of subsidies. If you want to argue for ending all subsides, then I think you need to sit down and think about how many profitable, self-sustaining industries have been created by taxpayers. Many of these industries are essential today, and simply would not have sprung up without government help because technology can take decades to become profitable. If you think the subsidies are giving Tesla an unfair advantage, then you are really reaching for shite because all car manufacturers are eligible for the same subsidies. Tesla isn't special.
We're taking Tesla subsidies. Tesla is an automaker. Why are you talking about fuel subsidies. Shouldn't you be comparing Ford subsidies?
Like I said, the subsidies don't have Tesla's name on them. All manufacturers can (and many do) take advantage of the same subsidies.
Because if we're talking fuel subsidies, then you have to throw in those fossil fuels in Wiki's chart because where in the hell do you think the power comes from to charge those batteries?
Electricity can come from many sources, and I'm sure you're pretty pissed that subsidies are helping to fund the transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources. I'm sorry, but subsidies got us to where we are today, and they will take us into the future as well. Calling out Tesla for benefiting from such programs is unfair at best, and flat out dishonest at worst.
But all of this is just a distraction from the fact that you can't explain the logic behind blocking Tesla from selling cars in Texas.