6 ms·

If that was true, it would be implemented quickly if carbon emissions weren’t free. (I’m not a rabid greenie but it still boggles my mind that we let companies

If that was true, it would be implemented quickly if carbon emissions weren’t free. (I’m not a rabid greenie but it still boggles my mind that we let companies dump shit in the air for free.)

epistasis 7y ago
Not just companies, but individuals on a massive scale. In California, 41% of carbon emissions are from transportation, the largest single source. (IMHO we need to also legalize car-free living in addition to just a carbon tax; it's not much use to tax emissions unless we allow mixed use density and transit, and most cities do not allow that to be built anywhere. )
- benj111 7y ago
  In what way is car free living illegal?
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Illegal, no. Economically inefficient pain in the butt, yes.
  - sbierwagen 7y ago
    Many California municipalities mandate a certain number of parking spots per housing unit, and also restrict the height of buildings. These laws act to reduce housing density, so that owning a car is required.
    - benj111 7y ago
      I'm aware of that, I don't think that makes owning a car a legal requirement though. Parts of San Francisco predate the car, so I assume density is high enough to support car free living.
      - bobthepanda 7y ago
        There’s no legal requirement to drive, but the barriers that parking requirements put up effectively make driving required, because the alternative is a major PITA. Consider the most basic of trips; you want to go from Walmart to a Target located across the street in a suburban shopping area. Where land values are low (per sq ft), the cheapest way to satisfy parking requirements is to build flat parking lots rather than structured multilevel parking. As a result, a walk across the street requires going from the front door, across a massive parking lot, then crossing a large, high-speed arterial suburban road where a suitable crosswalk may not be close by, and then crossing the Target parking lot to get to the front door. Quite the schlep through an environment that is at best unfriendly to pedestrians and at worst unsafe. In high land value areas this is less of a problem, because the parking lots are in small-footprint garages or located underneath buildings. But most of America does not live in high land value areas, and even the most basic of trips are only practical or safe in a motor vehicle.
  - MattPalmer1086 7y ago
    I didn't read it as saying car free living was illegal, rather that city planning laws make it impossible to achieve in practice. But it is a bit ambiguously phrased.
    - benj111 7y ago
      "we need to also legalize car-free living" That suggests to me that it's currently not legal, and as I don't know where they live, there could be a law applying to this.
      - epistasis 7y ago
        If you read a few more words I hope it becomes more clear: > allow mixed use density and transit, and most cities do not allow that to be built anywhere. It is illegal to build for car-free living in the vast majority of our land. So much is that in some of the places where it exists today, it would be illegal to build now because the building styles were made illegal over the last century. Car dependency is built into our laws and our built infrastructure, and that codified life style does not fit the desires of future generations, not their environmental needs.
adrianN 7y ago
You should consider joining the Citizen's Climate Lobby https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
roenxi 7y ago
You dump carbon emissions into the air; nobody charges you (editing for clarity - I'm talking about breathing). It also isn't at all obvious that any given company is doing more damage with the stuff they dump into the air than the positive benefits they create by burning fossil fuels, which is why there isn't more support for charging for carbon emissions. China is in a much better position to deal with the impacts of climate change after being responsible for ~25% of last years emissions than it would be if it had tried to industrialise using solar panels. Fossil fuels have positive and negative externalities. Just taxing the negatives and ignoring the positives is not a rational approach.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  What, tax the positives, too? The positives take care of themselves. The negatives are what need corrective action.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    Externalities don't take care of themselves. That is why they are classed as externalities. Logically speaking it would be subsidise the positives, but practically it is easiest to just let the negative externalities run and enjoy the positives, if the positives outweigh the negatives.
- southern_cross 7y ago
  > You dump carbon emissions into the air; nobody charges you (editing for clarity - I'm talking about breathing). And from your vehicle(s), and from your yard equipment, and from your fireplace, and probably from your heating system, and maybe from your kitchen, and maybe from your clothes dryer, and so on. And don't even get me started on things like outdoor grills, which could be considered major polluters (along with fireplaces and such). Heaven help us if the EPA ever decides to crack down on this stuff, especially enforcing PM 2.5 restrictions, because this could potentially have a major impact on us at home.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago

If that was true, it would be implemented quickly if carbon emissions weren’t free. (I’m not a rabid greenie but it still boggles my mind that we let companies dump shit in the air for free.)

epistasis 7y ago

Not just companies, but individuals on a massive scale. In California, 41% of carbon emissions are from transportation, the largest single source. (IMHO we need to also legalize car-free living in addition to just a carbon tax; it's not much use to tax emissions unless we allow mixed use density and transit, and most cities do not allow that to be built anywhere. )

benj111 7y ago
In what way is car free living illegal?
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Illegal, no. Economically inefficient pain in the butt, yes.
- sbierwagen 7y ago
  Many California municipalities mandate a certain number of parking spots per housing unit, and also restrict the height of buildings. These laws act to reduce housing density, so that owning a car is required.
  - benj111 7y ago
    I'm aware of that, I don't think that makes owning a car a legal requirement though. Parts of San Francisco predate the car, so I assume density is high enough to support car free living.
    - bobthepanda 7y ago
      There’s no legal requirement to drive, but the barriers that parking requirements put up effectively make driving required, because the alternative is a major PITA. Consider the most basic of trips; you want to go from Walmart to a Target located across the street in a suburban shopping area. Where land values are low (per sq ft), the cheapest way to satisfy parking requirements is to build flat parking lots rather than structured multilevel parking. As a result, a walk across the street requires going from the front door, across a massive parking lot, then crossing a large, high-speed arterial suburban road where a suitable crosswalk may not be close by, and then crossing the Target parking lot to get to the front door. Quite the schlep through an environment that is at best unfriendly to pedestrians and at worst unsafe. In high land value areas this is less of a problem, because the parking lots are in small-footprint garages or located underneath buildings. But most of America does not live in high land value areas, and even the most basic of trips are only practical or safe in a motor vehicle.
- MattPalmer1086 7y ago
  I didn't read it as saying car free living was illegal, rather that city planning laws make it impossible to achieve in practice. But it is a bit ambiguously phrased.
  - benj111 7y ago
    "we need to also legalize car-free living" That suggests to me that it's currently not legal, and as I don't know where they live, there could be a law applying to this.
    - epistasis 7y ago
      If you read a few more words I hope it becomes more clear: > allow mixed use density and transit, and most cities do not allow that to be built anywhere. It is illegal to build for car-free living in the vast majority of our land. So much is that in some of the places where it exists today, it would be illegal to build now because the building styles were made illegal over the last century. Car dependency is built into our laws and our built infrastructure, and that codified life style does not fit the desires of future generations, not their environmental needs.

adrianN 7y ago

You should consider joining the Citizen's Climate Lobby https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/

roenxi 7y ago

You dump carbon emissions into the air; nobody charges you (editing for clarity - I'm talking about breathing). It also isn't at all obvious that any given company is doing more damage with the stuff they dump into the air than the positive benefits they create by burning fossil fuels, which is why there isn't more support for charging for carbon emissions. China is in a much better position to deal with the impacts of climate change after being responsible for ~25% of last years emissions than it would be if it had tried to industrialise using solar panels. Fossil fuels have positive and negative externalities. Just taxing the negatives and ignoring the positives is not a rational approach.

ncmncm 7y ago
What, tax the positives, too? The positives take care of themselves. The negatives are what need corrective action.
- roenxi 7y ago
  Externalities don't take care of themselves. That is why they are classed as externalities. Logically speaking it would be subsidise the positives, but practically it is easiest to just let the negative externalities run and enjoy the positives, if the positives outweigh the negatives.
southern_cross 7y ago
> You dump carbon emissions into the air; nobody charges you (editing for clarity - I'm talking about breathing). And from your vehicle(s), and from your yard equipment, and from your fireplace, and probably from your heating system, and maybe from your kitchen, and maybe from your clothes dryer, and so on. And don't even get me started on things like outdoor grills, which could be considered major polluters (along with fireplaces and such). Heaven help us if the EPA ever decides to crack down on this stuff, especially enforcing PM 2.5 restrictions, because this could potentially have a major impact on us at home.
- Dylan16807 7y ago