25 ms·

These external costs are less-bad in the short/medium term than the societal costs incurred from an artificially terminated industry.

by anjc 8y ago

icebraining 8y ago
Careful about loaded words like "artificial". Arguably, in an hypothetical free-market, I would be able to sue every ICE car owner for the crap they push into my body and property. Let's see how popular they would be without that artificial legal protection. That aside, why are the costs less-bad? It's not like they'll stop making cars, it's just a different drivetrain. I'm sure there will be costs to the transition, but how do you figure they are worse than the external costs?
ajuc 8y ago
Banning non-electric cars (except for public transport, police, ambulances, etc) in biggest cities is hardly going to have societal costs. You can argue personal cars should be banned there altogether. There are many cities where private transport is already restricted in city centers. Public transport is cheaper, more ecological, saves time for everybody in traffic jams. What's the cost? That you have to drive to work or school with other people in same vehicle? You will get used to it. I have to die earlier because of all the shit that's in the air and car industry doesn't care. And that's just the first step, then you can tax internal combustion engines increasingly. As for the car industry - who cares? It's not like we cared about horse industry when cars appeared. Let them adapt or die. Government should protect citizens, not corporations.
- anjc 8y ago
  > As for the car industry - who cares? We care about industries such as this because they contribute massively to the public purse, provide stability to entire regions via employment, and make products that much of the world relies on right now. > It's not like we cared about horse industry when cars appeared. Horses weren't banned to encourage a car industry to emerge, users gravitated towards cars until eventually horses were superfluous/a burden.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    > Horses weren't banned to encourage a car industry to emerge, users gravitated towards cars until eventually horses were superfluous/a burden. That only worked because the people making money from selling horses weren't the same people who developed cars.
  - kjksf 8y ago
    Requiring electric cars won't kill car industry. The cars will still be made. They'll still be bought. Making them will still require jobs. You're doubling-down on a false premise that killing ICE cars means killing car industry. Tesla makes only electric cars and employs 46 thousand people. As Tesla shows, Mercedes, BMW, GM, Ford etc. could be making 10x more electric cars today and they would sell if they were any good. So in the interest of keeping our planet fit for human living we should nudge them in the right direction. If company A can't be bothered, then company B will emerge to take its place.
  - ajuc 8y ago
    > We care about industries such as this because they contribute massively to the public purse, provide stability to entire regions via employment, and make products that much of the world relies on right now. Most of the world doesn't produce cars. Why should they care? They are still using cars, wasting their lives in traffic jams and dying early because of air pollution. Many of them will have to migrate because of climate change. > Horses weren't banned to encourage a car industry to emerge, users gravitated towards cars until eventually horses were superfluous/a burden. What does it change? Industry died. Societal costs were there. Nobody cared.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
scbrg 8y ago
If the external costs could be put back onto the ones responsible for them, it would be OK. The problem is that now those industries are effectively subsidized by society. If polluting industries would pay for my allergy medicines, my replacement lungs, my relocation costs due to rising sea levels, etc, hey, that'd great. Let them pollute and let the market sort it out (as it most certainly would, given the prices they'd have to charge to cover their enormous expenses). However, they do not. So I am (and you are) forced to subsidize them. Incidentally, I never voted for subsidizing pollution, so I guess my remaining option is to "artificially terminating" it.

These external costs are less-bad in the short/medium term than the societal costs incurred from an artificially terminated industry.

by anjc 8y ago

These external costs are less-bad in the short/medium term than the societal costs incurred from an artificially terminated industry.

icebraining 8y ago

Careful about loaded words like "artificial". Arguably, in an hypothetical free-market, I would be able to sue every ICE car owner for the crap they push into my body and property. Let's see how popular they would be without that artificial legal protection. That aside, why are the costs less-bad? It's not like they'll stop making cars, it's just a different drivetrain. I'm sure there will be costs to the transition, but how do you figure they are worse than the external costs?

ajuc 8y ago

Banning non-electric cars (except for public transport, police, ambulances, etc) in biggest cities is hardly going to have societal costs. You can argue personal cars should be banned there altogether. There are many cities where private transport is already restricted in city centers. Public transport is cheaper, more ecological, saves time for everybody in traffic jams. What's the cost? That you have to drive to work or school with other people in same vehicle? You will get used to it. I have to die earlier because of all the shit that's in the air and car industry doesn't care. And that's just the first step, then you can tax internal combustion engines increasingly. As for the car industry - who cares? It's not like we cared about horse industry when cars appeared. Let them adapt or die. Government should protect citizens, not corporations.

anjc 8y ago
> As for the car industry - who cares? We care about industries such as this because they contribute massively to the public purse, provide stability to entire regions via employment, and make products that much of the world relies on right now. > It's not like we cared about horse industry when cars appeared. Horses weren't banned to encourage a car industry to emerge, users gravitated towards cars until eventually horses were superfluous/a burden.
- adrianN 8y ago
  > Horses weren't banned to encourage a car industry to emerge, users gravitated towards cars until eventually horses were superfluous/a burden. That only worked because the people making money from selling horses weren't the same people who developed cars.
- kjksf 8y ago
  Requiring electric cars won't kill car industry. The cars will still be made. They'll still be bought. Making them will still require jobs. You're doubling-down on a false premise that killing ICE cars means killing car industry. Tesla makes only electric cars and employs 46 thousand people. As Tesla shows, Mercedes, BMW, GM, Ford etc. could be making 10x more electric cars today and they would sell if they were any good. So in the interest of keeping our planet fit for human living we should nudge them in the right direction. If company A can't be bothered, then company B will emerge to take its place.
- ajuc 8y ago
  > We care about industries such as this because they contribute massively to the public purse, provide stability to entire regions via employment, and make products that much of the world relies on right now. Most of the world doesn't produce cars. Why should they care? They are still using cars, wasting their lives in traffic jams and dying early because of air pollution. Many of them will have to migrate because of climate change. > Horses weren't banned to encourage a car industry to emerge, users gravitated towards cars until eventually horses were superfluous/a burden. What does it change? Industry died. Societal costs were there. Nobody cared.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

scbrg 8y ago

If the external costs could be put back onto the ones responsible for them, it would be OK. The problem is that now those industries are effectively subsidized by society. If polluting industries would pay for my allergy medicines, my replacement lungs, my relocation costs due to rising sea levels, etc, hey, that'd great. Let them pollute and let the market sort it out (as it most certainly would, given the prices they'd have to charge to cover their enormous expenses). However, they do not. So I am (and you are) forced to subsidize them. Incidentally, I never voted for subsidizing pollution, so I guess my remaining option is to "artificially terminating" it.