4 ms·

An obvious step towards reducing CO2 emissions in the US would be raising taxes on gasoline. Americans are driving ever larger and less fuel-efficient cars in p

An obvious step towards reducing CO2 emissions in the US would be raising taxes on gasoline. Americans are driving ever larger and less fuel-efficient cars in part because gas prices have remained steady or fallen in real terms since the 70s. In fact, Ford announced a few months ago that they will stop selling passenger cars in the US (except the Mustang), to focus on more popular trucks and SUVs. But this is just about the least politically palatable policy imaginable. Democrats don't like it because it's a very regressive tax—the working poor across much of the country drive to work in older, less efficient cars. And besides being opposed to any "new taxes," the rural Republican base would be hit especially hard by this as well.

johnchristopher 8y ago
> An obvious step towards reducing CO2 emissions in the US would be raising taxes on gasoline. It seems we are past the luxury of looking for incentives to reduce CO2 emissions. It's about reducing CO2 emissions right now, no proxy allowed, no IFTTT schemes. There might be a bare minimum amount of CO2 allowed, it's fixed. We could monetize that but it doesn't matter. We can't go beyond that amount.
- gingerbread-man 8y ago
  > There might be a bare minimum amount of CO2 allowed, it's fixed. I'm not sure I understand, are you suggesting an individual "carbon-quota" as a more radical way of slashing emissions than the "incentives" of a carbon tax? Depending on the tax rate, a carbon tax could produce reasonably expeditious results.
  - johnchristopher 8y ago
    Yes, I was unclear, sorry. What I mean is: "There might physically be an amount of CO2 that can be released without compromising our ecosystem. That amount is fixed. We can't borrow on it and repay it later."
- jseliger 8y ago
  More importantly, while the grandparent poster is right about carbon taxes (and I support them), they require coordinated political action that is not happening right now in the United States. Again: let me reiterate that I agree they should happen, but the current dominant political party does not support them. So the YC question is: What can be done outside of American politics?
nthot 8y ago
If the article posted last week is to be believed [1], which I do, then transportation makes up a relatively small portion of emissions (14%). Also, the demand for gasoline is very inelastic. Very little driving done today is for pleasure, so the cost would have to be raised so much that people are reducing driving out of necessity/looking for alternatives. Finally, consumption taxes on necessities act regressively (ie the poor are taxed proportionally more than the rich). [1] https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting-climate-change https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting-clima...
aidenn0 8y ago
All carbon taxes can be made non-regressive by giving each citizen (or resident, or taxpayer or whatever) a credit. A form of cap-and-trade in which the carbon credits are auctioned off to emitters (and retail fuel sellers) and the profits are distributed equally to all residents would likely be progressive, since wealthy people are likely to have a higher carbon footprint. [edit] The biggest problem with any sort of carbon tax is that at some point it incentivizes evasion more than conservation. e.g. importing finished goods and electricity rather than raw materials and fuel just moves the emissions to another country.
lymeeducator 8y ago
Perhaps using fees from all combustion products (gas, diesel, natural gas, heating oil, coal, etc), to directly fund prairie, forests, gardens, etc will immediately begin reducing CO2 and help increase biodiversity which we are also highly dependent on.
anonuser123456 8y ago
The problem with carbon taxes are the incentives to cheat. The US is probably being the 'most honest' by simply saying we won't implement them. In China and India they would simply misreport their emissions and not pay the tax. And of course, you can't hit the carbon targets w/out getting India & China on board. In the absence of a world governing body with teeth (e.g. space aliens with a death ray), you can't enforce a carbon tax.
- linuxkerneldev 8y ago
  > The US is probably being the 'most honest' by simply saying we won't implement them. In China and India they would simply misreport their emissions and not pay the tax. Uhm, is there some data backing up your claim that we are honest and that China and India are dishonest. I mean, we really should think twice about accusing other countries of dishonesty after our whole weapons of mass destruction invasion debacle, various wars, regime changes, our "intelligence" services, rendition, Vietnam...
  - gchq-7703 8y ago
    I'm surprised you didn't mention the obvious one that only a couple of years ago Volkswagen was caught faking released emissions in the US [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
  - anonuser123456 8y ago
    This wasn't really an accusation that China / India are less moral, only that they will game the system differently than the US will. I mean... I put 'most honest' in quotes to imply the US is not really honest. No state actor is honest or moral, they all act in their own national interests.f For all the instances you reference, you think India or China don't have an equivalent moral failing? Cultural revolution? Great leap forward? Tienanmen square? Great firewall? As for India, go look up "most polluted city in the world." The top 5 are located in India and 9 of the top 10 are in India. Do you expect them to implement carbon taxes when they can't even clean up their own air? The whole point of this thread is that we need a technology solution with the underlying reasoning that political solutions have been and will remain untenable.
tvanantwerp 8y ago
Raising gas taxes are a good idea for other reasons too, primarily being the funding of infrastructure maintenance. Gas taxes are an almost perfect tax, where the more you're using the underlying public good (the road) the more you'll pay to support it. However, if EVs become the norm, that relationship breaks down and it becomes trickier to fund roads with taxes that link very directly to usage--assuming you believe privacy is a good thing and worth protecting.

johnchristopher 8y ago

> An obvious step towards reducing CO2 emissions in the US would be raising taxes on gasoline. It seems we are past the luxury of looking for incentives to reduce CO2 emissions. It's about reducing CO2 emissions right now, no proxy allowed, no IFTTT schemes. There might be a bare minimum amount of CO2 allowed, it's fixed. We could monetize that but it doesn't matter. We can't go beyond that amount.

gingerbread-man 8y ago
> There might be a bare minimum amount of CO2 allowed, it's fixed. I'm not sure I understand, are you suggesting an individual "carbon-quota" as a more radical way of slashing emissions than the "incentives" of a carbon tax? Depending on the tax rate, a carbon tax could produce reasonably expeditious results.
- johnchristopher 8y ago
  Yes, I was unclear, sorry. What I mean is: "There might physically be an amount of CO2 that can be released without compromising our ecosystem. That amount is fixed. We can't borrow on it and repay it later."
jseliger 8y ago
More importantly, while the grandparent poster is right about carbon taxes (and I support them), they require coordinated political action that is not happening right now in the United States. Again: let me reiterate that I agree they should happen, but the current dominant political party does not support them. So the YC question is: What can be done outside of American politics?

nthot 8y ago

If the article posted last week is to be believed [1], which I do, then transportation makes up a relatively small portion of emissions (14%). Also, the demand for gasoline is very inelastic. Very little driving done today is for pleasure, so the cost would have to be raised so much that people are reducing driving out of necessity/looking for alternatives. Finally, consumption taxes on necessities act regressively (ie the poor are taxed proportionally more than the rich). [1] https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting-climate-change https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting-clima...

aidenn0 8y ago

All carbon taxes can be made non-regressive by giving each citizen (or resident, or taxpayer or whatever) a credit. A form of cap-and-trade in which the carbon credits are auctioned off to emitters (and retail fuel sellers) and the profits are distributed equally to all residents would likely be progressive, since wealthy people are likely to have a higher carbon footprint. [edit] The biggest problem with any sort of carbon tax is that at some point it incentivizes evasion more than conservation. e.g. importing finished goods and electricity rather than raw materials and fuel just moves the emissions to another country.

lymeeducator 8y ago

Perhaps using fees from all combustion products (gas, diesel, natural gas, heating oil, coal, etc), to directly fund prairie, forests, gardens, etc will immediately begin reducing CO2 and help increase biodiversity which we are also highly dependent on.

anonuser123456 8y ago

The problem with carbon taxes are the incentives to cheat. The US is probably being the 'most honest' by simply saying we won't implement them. In China and India they would simply misreport their emissions and not pay the tax. And of course, you can't hit the carbon targets w/out getting India & China on board. In the absence of a world governing body with teeth (e.g. space aliens with a death ray), you can't enforce a carbon tax.

linuxkerneldev 8y ago
> The US is probably being the 'most honest' by simply saying we won't implement them. In China and India they would simply misreport their emissions and not pay the tax. Uhm, is there some data backing up your claim that we are honest and that China and India are dishonest. I mean, we really should think twice about accusing other countries of dishonesty after our whole weapons of mass destruction invasion debacle, various wars, regime changes, our "intelligence" services, rendition, Vietnam...
- gchq-7703 8y ago
  I'm surprised you didn't mention the obvious one that only a couple of years ago Volkswagen was caught faking released emissions in the US [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
- anonuser123456 8y ago
  This wasn't really an accusation that China / India are less moral, only that they will game the system differently than the US will. I mean... I put 'most honest' in quotes to imply the US is not really honest. No state actor is honest or moral, they all act in their own national interests.f For all the instances you reference, you think India or China don't have an equivalent moral failing? Cultural revolution? Great leap forward? Tienanmen square? Great firewall? As for India, go look up "most polluted city in the world." The top 5 are located in India and 9 of the top 10 are in India. Do you expect them to implement carbon taxes when they can't even clean up their own air? The whole point of this thread is that we need a technology solution with the underlying reasoning that political solutions have been and will remain untenable.

tvanantwerp 8y ago

Raising gas taxes are a good idea for other reasons too, primarily being the funding of infrastructure maintenance. Gas taxes are an almost perfect tax, where the more you're using the underlying public good (the road) the more you'll pay to support it. However, if EVs become the norm, that relationship breaks down and it becomes trickier to fund roads with taxes that link very directly to usage--assuming you believe privacy is a good thing and worth protecting.