User:Simon M. Writer/sandbox

Logical Argument and building Persuasion Introduction While there might be problems with government intervention in manufacturing and trade, subsidies help new industries pick up and sustain themselves after some time. Two articles provide opposing views on government subsidies in the electric car industry. Green argues against the subsidies while USA Today argues that subsidies are necessary for the adoption of the new technology. This paper argues that government subsidies for electric cars are important as they enable manufacturers to cut the cost of manufacturing and help buyers buy products at a reasonable price in the short-term, but they should be withdrawn as soon as the industry becomes sustainable. Do Electric Cars contribute to an Increase in Green Jobs Creation? Green argues against the view that electric cars will lead to an increase in the number of green jobs created in the United States. He argues that most of these jobs will benefit Asia where 98% of the most advanced batteries are manufactured. In using this figure, Green seeks to persuade the audience using ethos, which implies the use of an authoritative reference. He also argues that there will be no significant change in energy security because the few electric cars being sold will not help the United States cut its reliance on fuel importation. Thus, subsidizing the electric car market is tantamount to forcing electric cars into the U.S. Here, the author uses pathos, which involves invoking the emotions of the audience. Otherwise stated, he wants the people to understand the weight of allowing the government to force them to use subsidized imported electric cars. Green argues that the green jobs created as a result of the introduction of electric cars are insignificant because the number of electric cars is small and the electricity used to power them comes from unclean sources. Here, the author is using logos, implying logic to persuade the reader. USA Today, on the other hand, implicitly argues that since government subsidy will enable the electric car industry to sustain itself in the long run, more green jobs will be created. Again, the author is using logic to persuade the audience to support government subsidies. Do electric cars help Americans conserve the environment and reduce reliance on imported fuel? Green also has an issue with the argument that electric cars will reduce carbon emissions. Electric cars can only be beneficial to the environment if the electricity that powers them is generated from clean sources like nuclear power, hydro-power, wind, and solar power. Unfortunately, there have been no efforts to expand these clean energy sources, meaning that electric cars will have little impact on ensuring a pollution-free environment. Otherwise stated, electric cars could contribute to more conventional pollutants and greenhouse gases. The article by USA Today presents an opinion in response to Green, who opposes the move by the government to subsidize the electric car market. The author argues that it is unsustainable for the United States to keep importing oil and, therefore, electric cars are the best alternative. Similarly, there will always be arguments against any development. For instance, many will say that solar and wind energy is unreliable and nuclear energy is extremely dangerous. Nevertheless, such problems can be addressed if regulation is in place and there is a commitment from the government and other stakeholders. The article provides evidence for the phase-out of hybrid tax breaks, which Green appears to oppose. This evidence provides an example of ethos, which uses authoritative information to persuade the reader. USA Today argues that it is worth to try new technologies that face Americans currently even though they might have problems in the beginning. USA Today argues that since electric cars will result in a reduction in the importation of fossil fuels, it will contribute significantly to environmental conservation. USA Today argues that eventually, electric cars will reduce reliance on imported fuel while Green says that this market is too small to reduce this dependence. Can the electric car industry contribute to economic development if the government does not provide subsidies? The introduction of hybrid cars in the 1990s was characterized by skepticism, with some Americans deriding the Prius hybrid and Honda hybrid cars as overpriced vehicles that made little difference to the economy. Nevertheless, more than two million of these vehicles were sold eleven years after the Toyota and Honda had sold their first hybrid cars. The market for hybrid cars kept growing in the United States and worldwide, implying that skepticism can never impede technological advancement. The government has been providing tax credits for some of the electric cars sold to make them cheaper and increase the viability of the hybrid car industry. Of course, the government does not have the money to make this possible, but such a move will help cut reliance on imported fuel in the future. This is the argument in the article “Our view on energy: Electric car market gets useful jump-start” (USA Today). Thus, according to USA Today, the electric car industry cannot contribute to economic development if the government does not provide subsidies. This would spur economic development. Conversely, Green feels that subsidies are just a way to distort the market because they take the money from the poor to fund the projects of the wealthy people. In other words, the electric car market should be left to operate without disruption from the government. According to Green, even without subsidies, the electric car industry would still thrive, and the burden to the taxpayer would be drastically reduced. What burden affects taxpayer when the government introduces tax breaks on electric cars? Green explains that there are Americans who can afford electric cars, and the cost of cheaper batteries and technology may not be available soon. According to Green, the problem with subsidies is that they are implemented for a longer time than they are needed in the adoption of a new technology. Subsidies should only apply before the industry can sustain itself, and this has never happened. While electric vehicle boosters claim that the cost of electric batteries will fall, there is evidence that the fall will not be significant. Thus, the electric car industry will not benefit from government subsidy, implying that the increased burden to the taxpayer cannot be justified. USA Today argues that the electric car industry can only sustain itself and thrive if it gets support from the government initially while Green argues that the industry can pick up and sustain itself without any intervention. Green feels that subsidy for electric cars will be a huge burden to the taxpayer and the government. USA Today acknowledges this but argues that this burden will eventually pay off when the electric car market begins to thrive.

The Article that is more Persuasive Both articles are great in terms of logical coherence. USA Today presents reasons for supporting government subsidy on electric cars while Green provides evidence to support his opposing view. However, I find the argument by USA Today more persuasive than the one by Green. In fact, companies using clean technologies face stiff competition from existing companies using conventional technologies (Johnson and Suskewicz 1). Electric cars involve the use of equipment not found in hybrid cars and cars that use fossil fuel. Thus, manufacturing them is extremely costly, and the intervention by the government is justified. However, there is a need to have stringent regulation on the use of subsidies, including the period when the subsidies will apply. This can increase the commitment of manufacturers and reduce the tax burden on the Americans. According to Curley (114), subsidies should be big enough to help the manufacturers and create jobs. For instance, China and the U.S. introduced subsidies for the manufacture of solar panels, but China’s subsidies were too huge that manufacturers could export the panels at lower prices than U.S. manufacturers. Thus, if the U.S. fails to give subsidies, it indirectly supports industries in other countries. Harvard Business Review (43) argues for government subsidies that can stir economic growth faster than when there are no subsidies. Harris and Roach (426) argue that there is a need to phase out the subsidies slowly to prevent the negative impact on the economy. These arguments support the view by USA Today, which supports government subsidies in new industries particularly if they are capital intensive. The article provides evidence for the declining support for the electric car industry from the government, even though Green does not agree with this argument. Conclusion Both articles provide evidence to support their arguments. However, they differ in how the authors persuade the audience. USA Today presents a more logical argument and does better at persuading the audience than Green. Since electric cars reduce reliance on fossil fuel, they will significantly reduce dependence on the importation of fuel. There is evidence for the phase-out of hybrid tax breaks, implying that government subsidy will be removed eventually when the electric car industry can sustain itself. This disproves the argument by Green, who says that such a phase-out has never happened. The introduction of a new technology can help Americans deal with problems like environmental pollution, the high cost of fuel, and others. Thus, supporting the electric cars industry through a government subsidy program will have more benefits than losses for the Americans. References Curley, Michael. Finance policy for renewable energy and a sustainable environment. Boca Raton, Florida, United States: CRC Press, 2014.

Green, Kenneth P. Opposing view on energy: Subsidies? Just say no. 19 12 2010. 23 10 2018 .

Harris, Jonathan M. and Brian Roach. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: A Contemporary Approach. Armonk, New York, United States: M.E. Sharpe, 2013.

Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Review on Greening Your Business Profitably. Brighton, Boston, Massachusetts, United States: Harvard Business Press, 2011.

Johnson, Mark W., and Josh Suskewicz. "How to jump-start the clean economy." Harvard business review 87.11 (2009).

USA Today. Our view on energy: Electric car market gets useful jump-start. 19 12 2010. 23 10 2018 .