4 ms·

This is a great argument for why a price on carbon is a better solution than a direct regulatory approach. You can't game the price at the pump or find a looph

This is a great argument for why a price on carbon is a better solution than a direct regulatory approach. You can't game the price at the pump or find a loophole, or at least its more difficult to do so.

Hupriene 8y ago
Not true. Many of the problems described by gp wouldn't affect the fuel efficiency of the truck, but still vastly increase the pollutants the truck puts out. Replacing your catalytic converter with a steel pipe is the obvious way to game a carbon tax.
- thinkcontext 8y ago
  Good point. There's a role for both.
- SilasX 8y ago
  That would be an argument for taxing the pollutants too. (Yes, it's not a perfect policy, but please don't criticize it with an argument equivalent to saying that a unit of pollution is infinitely bad. It's not.)
SigmundA 8y ago
NOx is not carbon and typically NOx emissions go up the more efficient the engine is. So while your carbon emissions per mile may go down your NOx emission may go up.
Gibbon1 8y ago
I'm a broken record, but a price on things that emit carbon dioxide and NOX is better. Because when people/companies buy a fossil fueled machines they've made a irrevocable decision to emit a fixed amount of CO2/NOX. That's the decision point where you need to force peoples hand. Example: I bought a used 2012 Prius in 2015. The moment that car was built an extra 50 tons of CO2 was slated to be emitted over the next 15 years. You can raise the gas tax as much as politically possible and that won't change the amount of CO2 the car will emit.
greeneggs 8y ago
It isn't a question of loopholes, this is a deliberate policy decision. These articles [1, 2] discuss the politics more. > In the final hours of Scott Pruitt’s tenure as administrator, the Environmental Protection Agency moved on Friday to effectively grant a loophole that will allow a major increase in the manufacturing of a diesel freight truck that produces as much as 55 times the air pollution as trucks that have modern emissions controls. > The move by the E.P.A. came after intense lobbying by a small set of manufacturers that sell glider trucks, which use old engines built before new technologies significantly reduced emissions of particulates and nitrogen oxide that are blamed for asthma, lung cancer and other ailments. … > But agency officials confirmed to The New York Times that, through the end of 2019, the E.P.A. will not enforce an annual cap of 300 gliders per manufacturer that had been imposed in January. … > An estimated 10,000 glider trucks were sold nationally in 2015 — about 4 percent of new heavy-duty truck sales — and production could soon return to that level. … The agency, she said, is also considering formally delaying the 300-unit cap until December 2019 — by which point it hopes to have permanently repealed the cap. [1] "‘Super Polluting’ Trucks Receive Loophole on Pruitt’s Last Day" (July 6, 2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/us/glider-trucks-loophole-pruitt.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/us/glider-trucks-loophole... [2] "How $225,000 Can Help Secure a Pollution Loophole at Trump’s E.P.A." (Feb. 15, 2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/politics/epa-pollution-loophole-glider-trucks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/politics/epa-pollution...

Hupriene 8y ago

Not true. Many of the problems described by gp wouldn't affect the fuel efficiency of the truck, but still vastly increase the pollutants the truck puts out. Replacing your catalytic converter with a steel pipe is the obvious way to game a carbon tax.

thinkcontext 8y ago
Good point. There's a role for both.
SilasX 8y ago
That would be an argument for taxing the pollutants too. (Yes, it's not a perfect policy, but please don't criticize it with an argument equivalent to saying that a unit of pollution is infinitely bad. It's not.)

SigmundA 8y ago

NOx is not carbon and typically NOx emissions go up the more efficient the engine is. So while your carbon emissions per mile may go down your NOx emission may go up.

Gibbon1 8y ago

I'm a broken record, but a price on things that emit carbon dioxide and NOX is better. Because when people/companies buy a fossil fueled machines they've made a irrevocable decision to emit a fixed amount of CO2/NOX. That's the decision point where you need to force peoples hand. Example: I bought a used 2012 Prius in 2015. The moment that car was built an extra 50 tons of CO2 was slated to be emitted over the next 15 years. You can raise the gas tax as much as politically possible and that won't change the amount of CO2 the car will emit.

greeneggs 8y ago

It isn't a question of loopholes, this is a deliberate policy decision. These articles [1, 2] discuss the politics more. > In the final hours of Scott Pruitt’s tenure as administrator, the Environmental Protection Agency moved on Friday to effectively grant a loophole that will allow a major increase in the manufacturing of a diesel freight truck that produces as much as 55 times the air pollution as trucks that have modern emissions controls. > The move by the E.P.A. came after intense lobbying by a small set of manufacturers that sell glider trucks, which use old engines built before new technologies significantly reduced emissions of particulates and nitrogen oxide that are blamed for asthma, lung cancer and other ailments. … > But agency officials confirmed to The New York Times that, through the end of 2019, the E.P.A. will not enforce an annual cap of 300 gliders per manufacturer that had been imposed in January. … > An estimated 10,000 glider trucks were sold nationally in 2015 — about 4 percent of new heavy-duty truck sales — and production could soon return to that level. … The agency, she said, is also considering formally delaying the 300-unit cap until December 2019 — by which point it hopes to have permanently repealed the cap. [1] "‘Super Polluting’ Trucks Receive Loophole on Pruitt’s Last Day" (July 6, 2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/us/glider-trucks-loophole-pruitt.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/us/glider-trucks-loophole... [2] "How $225,000 Can Help Secure a Pollution Loophole at Trump’s E.P.A." (Feb. 15, 2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/politics/epa-pollution-loophole-glider-trucks.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/politics/epa-pollution...