http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.h... You have no idea what you are talking about. Read and understand the above and then respond.
The restriction of not allowing Tesla to enter Iowa and sell its product is the issue. Taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion, any product that entered Iowa wouldn't represent interstate commerce because it then needs to be sold in Iowa. So, the federal government says that I can drive my bananas over the border. However, when I get there, I can't sell them. That would defeat the purpose of the commerce clause.
Where are the mod points when you need them.
This all depends on what they were able to engineer. It may be the case that none of those things are possible with the current generation of device, with the benefits still remaining theoretical.
I think perception is much more important politically here. If I'm a politician trying to "stick it to the rich," I want a marginal tax rate as high as possible. I don't really care about how much the rich are paying -- only that my constituents are convinced of my progressivity. Many of my friends on the left mention the "90%" tax rates of the 1950s. However, they don't realize that with the then tax breaks, this was actually much lower (and it was the rich that could utilize those tax breaks). They want high taxes on corporations, but don't realize that they are the ones paying those taxes. Indeed, for those who have been the most honest with me, they believe that the less the public knows the more the government can take, and that, to them, is a good thing.
The title was "If Tesla Can Run Its Gigafactory On 100% Renewables, Why Can't Others?" However, the factory isn't there yet. Shouldn't we wait to see if it is actually possible before taking it as a given?
The companies that do that will go out of business and the companies that please the customer won't.
I would expect manufacturers to attempt to provide what the majority of customers want while attempting to keep their costs and the price of the tablet within reason (within range of their competitors). What else would they do?
The drug machine is caused by government prohibition. No innocent people would be hurt if the government stayed out of these personal decisions.
Patents are not granted for the benefit of a few. They are granted because: The Congress shall have power
... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Having said that, I agree that the question should be "why should they be able to patent it."
Oh, come now. You are total wrong here. Look how successful our solar panel manufacturers are. That would have never happened without government investment! I'm sure the same thing will happen in the EU. I mean, if government doesn't pick winners and losers, who will?
Conservatives would eliminate government subsidized student loans. So, whether we agree or disagree with that policy, it would guarantee that the situation you mention would never come to pass.
Nearly 100% rejection of race-baiting and skin color preferences. Things really have changed for the better.
Damned if you do... damned if you do, I think.