4 ms·

While I doubt this will go into effect, this is simply bad policy. The economic shocks that will accompany a hard ban make no sense when compared to the option

While I doubt this will go into effect, this is simply bad policy. The economic shocks that will accompany a hard ban make no sense when compared to the option of a gradual phase out (gradually increase fuel taxes? gradually increase taxes on the sale of new petrol vehicles?)

icebraining 7y ago
I think announcing a ban is part of a phase out policy. The problem with relying just on gradual mechanisms is the "boiling frog" effect acting against you. A drastic announcement spurs people out of complacency. By the time you get to the deadline, the ban might not even be needed.
Reason077 7y ago
The ban is on new vehicles. ie: New vehicles sold after 2030 must be zero emission. Not that all existing petrol and diesel vehicles must suddenly be scrapped. Vehicles tend to last about 15 years, so even with a ban coming into effect in 2030, it'd likely be around 2045 before the vast majority of fossil burners are off the street. That's pretty gradual.
Svip 7y ago
Government investment in charging infrastructure, increasing fuel prices/registration fees on ICE vehicles, etc., those are approachable and realistic options, and things we can do right now. I personally believe, that come 2026, car manufacturers will sound the alarm, that they simply won't be able to produce enough EVs come 2030 to meet demand. The policy will then likely get postponed till 2040, and so on for a couple of decades.
- vixen99 7y ago
  Yes. Some realism on the subject!
bloak 7y ago
Agreed. I'd tax the fuel, personally, because if you taxed the sale of "new" vehicles then people would soon find a way of getting vehicles that are practically but not officially "new".
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
Ireland don't make cars so most of the economic shock will be felt outside the country. I seem to remember they already have high purchase taxes on cars.
canofbars 7y ago
What is the economic value of having a livable planet?
- arpa 7y ago
  Ban fucking cruise ships.
  - Brakenshire 7y ago
    Cruise ships or shipping in general has quite a low impact on the climate. You're probably thinking about those articles which say that 8 ships produce more pollution than all cars in the world, but that is Sulphur Dioxide, which is a local pollutant, but has no impact on climate change, it has nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide or any other greenhouse gases. Also, the only reason they produce so much more Sulphur Dioxide is because road vehicles have strong regulation which require that Sulphur is almost eliminated from their fuel as part of the refining process. Regulations limiting Sulphur in ship fuel have already been introduced and are in the process of being phased in through the International Maritime Organization, and strict regulations already exist for areas close to ports (since 2010) and then in territorial waters in most of the developed world (since 2015). http://www.seatrade-maritime.com/images/PDFs/SOMWME-whitepaper_Sulphur-p2.pdf http://www.seatrade-maritime.com/images/PDFs/SOMWME-whitepap...

icebraining 7y ago

I think announcing a ban is part of a phase out policy. The problem with relying just on gradual mechanisms is the "boiling frog" effect acting against you. A drastic announcement spurs people out of complacency. By the time you get to the deadline, the ban might not even be needed.

Reason077 7y ago

The ban is on new vehicles. ie: New vehicles sold after 2030 must be zero emission. Not that all existing petrol and diesel vehicles must suddenly be scrapped. Vehicles tend to last about 15 years, so even with a ban coming into effect in 2030, it'd likely be around 2045 before the vast majority of fossil burners are off the street. That's pretty gradual.

Svip 7y ago

Government investment in charging infrastructure, increasing fuel prices/registration fees on ICE vehicles, etc., those are approachable and realistic options, and things we can do right now. I personally believe, that come 2026, car manufacturers will sound the alarm, that they simply won't be able to produce enough EVs come 2030 to meet demand. The policy will then likely get postponed till 2040, and so on for a couple of decades.

vixen99 7y ago
Yes. Some realism on the subject!

bloak 7y ago

Agreed. I'd tax the fuel, personally, because if you taxed the sale of "new" vehicles then people would soon find a way of getting vehicles that are practically but not officially "new".

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

Ireland don't make cars so most of the economic shock will be felt outside the country. I seem to remember they already have high purchase taxes on cars.

canofbars 7y ago

What is the economic value of having a livable planet?

arpa 7y ago
Ban fucking cruise ships.
- Brakenshire 7y ago
  Cruise ships or shipping in general has quite a low impact on the climate. You're probably thinking about those articles which say that 8 ships produce more pollution than all cars in the world, but that is Sulphur Dioxide, which is a local pollutant, but has no impact on climate change, it has nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide or any other greenhouse gases. Also, the only reason they produce so much more Sulphur Dioxide is because road vehicles have strong regulation which require that Sulphur is almost eliminated from their fuel as part of the refining process. Regulations limiting Sulphur in ship fuel have already been introduced and are in the process of being phased in through the International Maritime Organization, and strict regulations already exist for areas close to ports (since 2010) and then in territorial waters in most of the developed world (since 2015). http://www.seatrade-maritime.com/images/PDFs/SOMWME-whitepaper_Sulphur-p2.pdf http://www.seatrade-maritime.com/images/PDFs/SOMWME-whitepap...