5 ms·
Unfortunately, some still look at immediate costs instead of considering long-term health benefits (and cost savings) due to lower pollution: Doubts have been
by mariushn 7y ago
Unfortunately, some still look at immediate costs instead of considering long-term health benefits (and cost savings) due to lower pollution:
Doubts have been raised about the cost-benefit ratio of the pilot project. Micheal Kraft, vice president of the Hessian Motor Trade Association, considers the technology, which is already used in Sweden, to be uneconomical.
- gridlockd 7y agoThe doubts are entirely warranted. Health effects are externalities, so unless the government puts a price on it, they have no impact on whether something is economical or not. If something is uneconomical, it simply cannot work unless it is subsidized and then the question is whether there isn't a better use for that money. Cost-Benefit is always relevant. If you just care about the health effects, subsidizing gas-powered vehicles may be more cost efficient.
- fluffything 7y ago> If something is uneconomical, it simply cannot work unless it is subsidized Or alternatively, everything else is made worse. Raise taxes on Diesel, raise taxes on non-hybrid and non-electric trucks, forbid non-electric trucks from autobahns, etc. If you are a government, you don't have to make this solution better, you can just make all other solutions worse.
- mariushn 7y agoThis makes sense. Thanks :)
- Mrdarknezz 7y agoWell since Germany uses coalpower, it will make the environmental gain pretty much non-existent.