Frito-Lay/PepsiCo Cashes in On Electric Truck Subsidies

By Paul Chesser

Last week Frito-Lay, the $12 billion snack foods division of PepsiCo, boasted it would add 10 all-electric delivery trucks in Orlando, Fla., as part of its plan to deploy 176 such vehicles in the U.S. and Canada by the end of year. 

As is custom with corporate announcements that proclaim their eco-accomplishments, so as to pacify persistent climate alarmists, Frito-Lay said the vehicles would emit “zero” pollutants from tailpipes and release 75 percent fewer greenhouse gases than diesel. The ETs (electric trucks) can allegedly run 100 miles on a single charge, and Frito-Lay says the groundbreaking new haulers provide “a long-term economically viable solution” – apparently to solve global warming.

Regular readers of NLPC should know the Chevy Volt sticker price, before the $7,500 tax credit, is $41,000, and for the Nissan Leaf it’s $35,200. So the cost for an electric delivery truck must be somewhat higher, right? And you’d think that Frito-Lay, and any other company that undertakes an electric truck program to meet its distribution needs, would go to great expense for a much heavier and larger electric transporter than the Volt and Leaf, correct? 

Not so fast, Sparky. 

While it is certainly true the electric trucks (ETs) are more expensive, that doesn’t mean Frito-Lay is footing the bill for them. Yes, astute NLPC reader, you’ve figured out who’s covering the bill: taxpayers.

Read the rest at National Legal and Policy Center.

37 Responses to Frito-Lay/PepsiCo Cashes in On Electric Truck Subsidies

  1. Rob N. Hood December 26, 2011 at 6:14 pm #

    I realize you believe that. It is hypocritical of you. I don’t say that other than it’s an honest viewpoint.

  2. Joe December 26, 2011 at 1:08 am #

    Your intents are extremely obvious. What I think and believe on this site as well as other are open for interpretation by others, not constant chastising nor mattter how lame or inane. You are correct, you attempt to “demeans and derail.”

  3. Rob N. Hood December 24, 2011 at 11:51 am #

    That is what I engage in, what you think or believe what it is you are doing I have no idea. Well actually I do- it’s demean and derail.

  4. Joe December 23, 2011 at 11:20 pm #

    Point/counterpoint my friend.

  5. Rob N. Hood December 23, 2011 at 8:08 am #

    And I encourage you to use your freedom of speech and you use your own Alinskyesque methods to oddly deride me? ? ?

  6. Rob N. Hood December 22, 2011 at 8:08 am #

    Wow. Lame. I am not, I repeat I am not, a fan of Obama, or any of the elite, anywhere. I sincerely believe THAT is what makes us different.

  7. Joe December 21, 2011 at 10:56 pm #

    Alinsky would be proud. Do you get brownie points from the Obama Camp? I sincerely believe you do. Free vacation to Hawaii I assume?

  8. Rob N. Hood December 21, 2011 at 8:05 am #

    Let it all hang out Joe- be brave.

  9. Joe December 19, 2011 at 10:48 pm #

    I hold my tongue due to being censored.

  10. Rob N. Hood December 16, 2011 at 8:14 am #

    Once again you miss the point. I never said you have to be friends with everyone, etc. In fact, that could only be true of someone suffering from retardation. But not to TRY to get along with others, not to TRY to have empathy for others, not to TRY to make peace… THAT’s the problem. It is MUCH MUCH MUCH easier to shrug it off as you just did. Too many people do that, and to what end? Death and despair, that’s what. Not to belabor the point, but isn’t this what Jesus said and tried to explain?? And have we not evolved since he was killed for it?? Seems to me maybe we haven’t. And gosh… that bugs me. Sheesh.

  11. Rob N. Hood December 15, 2011 at 8:02 am #

    Again, I don’t know who or what you are arguing with. I explained my position pretty well, and I never even hinted at having no standards or limits. Do you just like to argue? Debate is one thing, arguing is another. So it goes.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD December 15, 2011 at 6:48 pm #

      It’s good to know that you have standards and limits. I do too but I think they are set at a completely different level. I’m sorry but this is one of those things that irritate me. I hear a lot of people say things along the lines of what you are saying, like why can’t we just be friends with everybody, and why can’t we have world peace, and we shouldn’t go to war, stuff like that. And I think there is this concept among Liberal types that these things are entirely possible, when in the real world I know for a fact that it isn’t. It just bugs me…… Sorry.

  12. Rob N. Hood December 14, 2011 at 4:17 pm #

    “Pleasing” someone or a group of someones is not the same as showing compassion, or being mindful of compassion as a fundamental personal trait. Yes, I know you cannot please everyone, etc etc etc… That misses the point. People missed the point when Jesus was saying the same thing. Why are we so stubborn and cling to biases and rote responses to some things that should be natural, and deemed basic for all to ascribe to?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD December 14, 2011 at 8:32 pm #

      Did you have any compassion for the 9/11 highjackers? How about the guy who cut off Danial Pearl’s head and video taped it, did you have compassion for him? There are some people who do not deserve compassion.

  13. Rob N. Hood December 14, 2011 at 11:51 am #

    Sounds like the “words of wisdom” some were telling Jesus. (I am NOT comparing myself, or anyone else, to Jesus). Just making a point, or trying to.

  14. joe December 14, 2011 at 12:36 am #

    Learned long ago Neil, “You cannot please everyone.” “Merry Christmas!”

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD December 14, 2011 at 6:37 am #

      No, you really can’t. This is one of those things that is a typical Liberal red herring. It sounds so wonderful, so noble an endeavor. But the truth is it completely ignores the real world, and is a goal that is unattainable. Much like efforts to control “greenhouse” gases. They will say we have to spend trillions of dollars, and suffer untold economic decline to curb GHG emissions. But if you get them aside they will admit that it would do virtually nothing to affect the climate. It is a complete waste of time, money, and effort.

  15. Hal Groar December 13, 2011 at 10:18 pm #

    So Pepsi is sucking the Green T*T! Disappointing! I can not go to Coke because they had an imaginary Polar bear issue, now Pepsi wants to go green. I have always been a supporter of large corporations that are being targeted by the left. Kicking Pop out of schools and Cigs out of Bars and 100 watt light bulbs out of homes makes me mad. I can not support a company that trys to be green. Especially at the cost of the taxpayer. I want to support Pepsi…but they blew it on this one. So on to RC Cola for me!! it tastes better anyway! Rats huh???? Neil I am surprised at you!

  16. Rob N. Hood December 13, 2011 at 11:10 am #

    So don’t even try… what’s the point, eh? Very sad. Peace be with you.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD December 13, 2011 at 10:13 pm #

      Try what exactly? Make people who have no compassion have compassion? Just how would you propose trying to do that? if Iv’e learned one thing in my life it’s that no matter how hard you try you can’t change people. You can only change yourself. And this is true no matter where you go.
      Shure, you can persuade people into believing certain things. You can educate people about certain things. But you will never be able to change a person’s core beliefs, or their natural reactions to other people.
      Do you like everyone you meet? Does everyone you meet like you? How are you going to get someone who hates your guts to have compassion for you? Get real. There are people all over the world who hate you just because you were born here. Not for any other reason. How are you going to get them to have compassion for you? By showing them compassion? Good luck with that. I’m sorry RNH but that is a childish and naive view to have.

  17. Rob N. Hood December 11, 2011 at 10:57 am #

    Granted I did add a slur directed towards the usual suspects. It’s just that a little more compassion between humanoids can, and could, go a long way to solving many problems of the day and the lack thereof frustrates saps like me.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD December 11, 2011 at 4:16 pm #

      I agree that more compassion between human beings would be a great thing, and go a long way towards solving many problems. But then reality is far from the ideal. In a perfect world there would be more compassion, and a lot less hate. But this is not a perfect world and there is no way to make it one.

      • Rob N. Hood December 14, 2011 at 1:24 pm #

        You just contradicted yourself. And I never said it was a perfect world or that it could be. Once again your over-reaction is telling something. What, I can only guess, nor do I want to argue about it. I made a simple statement about humans, which could just as easily be stand-alone, and nothing for anyone to disagree with or even attempt to argue- and yet you did. And do, constantly, no matter what I post. And you accuse me of picking fights or arguments. Know thyself. Then proceed. Politely, if at all possible.

  18. Rob N. Hood December 11, 2011 at 10:54 am #

    Your usual over-reacting belies something else. Know thyself- a great man once said that was the fist crucial step for every person. Nobody’s trumpeting anything, except maybe the usual mainstream media hyperbole, and there are many speculative explanations obviously for such behavior in that particular rat in that particular study. My point, as per usual, attempted to transcend such useless minutae and elevate the discussion. Silly me.

  19. Rob N. Hood December 11, 2011 at 7:44 am #

    One track minds of the human variety. A rodent needs anther rodent to survive? Really, since when? (other than the arguably selfish act of procreation). Delays eating chocolate of all things… ! Call it ANYTHING you want, guys, but a little more of it from you would be encouraging.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD December 11, 2011 at 8:51 am #

      I watched the video http://video.sciencemag.org/VideoLab/1310979895001/1 made by the researchers and I think it is wide open for interpretation. There is nothing definitive about the researchers conclusions. It took five days for the “free” rat to figure out how to open the door! Come on! This is purely a case of the “results” of an experiment confirming the researchers bias. And that is exactly the same phenomenon that occurs in most global warming research.
      Really now, if I can come up with other possible variables just sitting at my desk reading stories on the computer, don’t you think it is possible that the researchers missed those other possibilities because they don’t want to see them? Use your brain!

      http://www.experiment-resources.com/research-bias.html
      “Some bias in research arises from experimental error and failure to take into account all of the possible variables. Other research bias arises when researchers select subjects that are more likely to generate the desired results, a reversal of the normal processes governing science.”

      And if you are wondering why I am commenting on this subject it is because this type of thing goes to the heart of the AGW debate.
      For example, this study is the first study to examine this kind of behavior in rats, yet the results of this one study are trumpeted as being scientific fact! But that is not how the scientific method is supposed to work. In order to be true to the scientific method, the conclusions of this experiment need to be considered as an hypothesis, and the hypothesis needs to be examined and tested, and new experiments would need to be developed to test the hypothesis. Then if the hypothesis is refuted it would need to be modified and retested, or if confirmed it would need to be peer reviewed by other researchers who would confirm the results by repeating the experiments. We have none of that here.
      And this is the same problem I have with computer generated climate models. They are given the full weight of scientific fact when they are really just computer generated hypothesis that are not vetted through any process of the scientific method.

  20. joe December 11, 2011 at 1:09 am #

    They usually do.

  21. Joe December 10, 2011 at 7:15 pm #

    Wonder how much the rat grant cost the taxpayers?

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD December 10, 2011 at 7:46 pm #

      Probably a lot! Especially if they somehow tied it to AGW.

  22. Rob N. Hood December 10, 2011 at 9:05 am #

    And more break-throughs: Far from being self-centered scroungers, a new study found that the rodents showed what looks like real empathy — repeatedly freeing trapped companions, even when they’re given the opportunity to eat chocolate instead.

    This first evidence of empathy-motivated behavior in rodents suggests that this type of pro-social helping behavior developed earlier in animal evolution than was previously thought, the University of Chicago researchers added.

    Now if only humans could catch up evolutionally.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD December 10, 2011 at 5:55 pm #

      ?

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD December 10, 2011 at 7:44 pm #

        Is it really empathy? I bet, and I am not an expert by any means on animal behavioral studies, but I don’t believe for a second that it is empathy. I bet it is more along the lines of a survival instinct. As in there is strength in numbers and numbers give the rodents an advantage so one will free another if it can. This business of assigning human traits to rodents, or any other animal, anthropomorphism, is just laughable. I don’t believe for a second that a rat, or a mouse, or a gerble, give a proverbial rat’s rear end about another. Come on, think about it logically. Q: How big is a rodent’s brain? A: Smaller than your fingertip. Q: Does a rodent’s brain have the capacity for higher functions or emotions? A: Not a chance. Q: Does a rodent act, and react out of instinct, or thought? A: Instinct all the way. Q: Which is more likely, a rodent frees a fellow rodent because instinct tells it that it needs other rodents to survive, or that the rodent feels sorry for the trapped rodent and frees it because it feels bad? What do you think?

        This is just the kind of “scientific research” that gave us AGW!!!

  23. Rob N. Hood December 10, 2011 at 8:00 am #

    Finally a break through… there are actually many things people like us agree upon, or could. Thanks Neil for that.

  24. joe December 10, 2011 at 1:19 am #

    I agree as well. We continue to elect the idiots that give out the freebies/subsidies. Hasn’t changed since I was born. Probably never will. By the way, it is not corporate welfare it it government welfare, (our money) thanks to our elected officials. Dem’s or Repub’s, it doesn’t matter.

  25. Rob N. Hood December 9, 2011 at 10:17 am #

    This is another example of corporate welfare and kowtowing (legal bribery via money based elections) of our elected officials to funnel benefits their way. It is wrong and should be stopped along with all other corporate welfare.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD December 9, 2011 at 7:03 pm #

      Huh? I agree with RNH? Wait, let me check….. Yup I agree with RNH on this one. Don’t get exited Rob, this does not mean I want to take long walks on the beach holding hands. But yes this is corporate welfare, and it has to stop.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes