3 ms·

While you have the right idea, that “every little bit counts” is bunkum, you stopped a little short: Car emissions only account for ~42-44% of total emissions f

While you have the right idea, that “every little bit counts” is bunkum, you stopped a little short: Car emissions only account for ~42-44% of total emissions from transportation in North America. Large trucks account for 56-58%. Source: Sustainable energy, without the hot air. This book dives into the bigs that need to be tackled before the smalls. Plus, penalizing fuel hurts the poor more than the rich. The poor are the ones driving long distances from cheap housing to city centres for work. They are the personal support workers, caregivers and Uber drivers. The rich can afford to live within 10 mins walking distance of work, and can also afford to move when changing jobs to maintain walkability.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
Fuel (fossil) is causing the problem. It doesn’t matter if it affects rich or poor more or less, the only solution is to reduce the use of fossil fuel. Raising the cost will also reduce truck’s usage of fuel. I don’t think sustainable fuel (non fossil fuel) is realistic on the timescale that humans need it to be. Fossil fuel is just so convenient with its portability and ease of use, that it will remain preferred for many uses.
- glitchc 7y ago
  Fossil fuels are the bedrock of modern western civilization. Period, full stop. Moving away from fossil fuels requires us to take a huge hit in our current standard of living, at least in the short to medium term. Everything we purchase or interact with is dependent on fossil fuels. Those trucks you vilify are transporting all manner of goods. Taxing fuel raises prices on all goods, from fresh cauliflower to XBoxes. There is no plastic without fossil fuels. All goods are dependent on plastic in some form or another; many goods are made entirely of plastic. Eliminating plastic requires anywhere from minor to major redesign of a given good and a correspondingly increased bill of materials, both for the cost of redesign and cost of sourcing the alternative, and these costs will be passed directly onto the customer, thereby raising the prices of everything. Put those two together, it will become apparent that living in a modern western society with the abundance we are used to becomes quickly unsustainable for everyone except the very wealthy. You may think you can bear the cost on an SV salary but most people in America cannot. You are asking people in America to accept a non-trivial downgrade in their standard of living and they will fight you tooth and nail to preserve it, at the ballot box and elsewhere. That’s just how human beings are wired. In terms of other countries, they are all looking to attain the same standard of life available in the west and will happily consume more fossil fuels to get there. Any lack of demand on the west’s side results in cheaper prices, spurring increased consumption in emerging markets. Furthermore, lets say you do succeed in increased fuel costs, thus reducing our collective standard of living. It will probably backfire when that happens, as your SV salary depends on their high standard of living. If the avg person’s purchasing power plummets, their demand for tech goods also plummets. After all, the overwhelming majority of tech goods satisfy wants, not needs, and discretionary purchases of new phones, Alexas and Sonos speakers are the first things to go out the window when survival is at stake. There goes that large salary and vested stocks. Now you’re stuck fighting for survival too. It’s a race to the bottom. There are only two real solutions: A source of energy more dense or portable than gasoline, or some form of population control. The first is difficult, the second is currently unthinkable for most people.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    I agree with everything you wrote, and hence why I think plastic bags and straws and recycling in general is a waste of time and energy (ironically). Reducing consumption by increased taxes (worldwide), and/or by reduced population, and finding an alternate source of fuel are the only solutions. But I doubt an alternative to fossil fuels with equivalent properties can be discovered in sufficient time.
fshaun 7y ago
I have never understood the argument that taxes on e.g. gasoline are regressive and this should not be raised. When we find an externality that is not accounted for in costs, are we to throw up our hands and say we cannot do anything because some of the increased costs will be passed on to consumers? The right amswer is not to avoid the tax but to compensate the mpst affected via redistributive policies like a negative income tax.
- karatestomp 7y ago
  Tax it, put the money toward public transit. Hell, I think that in an ideal world something similar would happen to traffic and parking tickets. More people parking illegally or speeding? More money goes to buses and trains.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

Fuel (fossil) is causing the problem. It doesn’t matter if it affects rich or poor more or less, the only solution is to reduce the use of fossil fuel. Raising the cost will also reduce truck’s usage of fuel. I don’t think sustainable fuel (non fossil fuel) is realistic on the timescale that humans need it to be. Fossil fuel is just so convenient with its portability and ease of use, that it will remain preferred for many uses.

glitchc 7y ago
Fossil fuels are the bedrock of modern western civilization. Period, full stop. Moving away from fossil fuels requires us to take a huge hit in our current standard of living, at least in the short to medium term. Everything we purchase or interact with is dependent on fossil fuels. Those trucks you vilify are transporting all manner of goods. Taxing fuel raises prices on all goods, from fresh cauliflower to XBoxes. There is no plastic without fossil fuels. All goods are dependent on plastic in some form or another; many goods are made entirely of plastic. Eliminating plastic requires anywhere from minor to major redesign of a given good and a correspondingly increased bill of materials, both for the cost of redesign and cost of sourcing the alternative, and these costs will be passed directly onto the customer, thereby raising the prices of everything. Put those two together, it will become apparent that living in a modern western society with the abundance we are used to becomes quickly unsustainable for everyone except the very wealthy. You may think you can bear the cost on an SV salary but most people in America cannot. You are asking people in America to accept a non-trivial downgrade in their standard of living and they will fight you tooth and nail to preserve it, at the ballot box and elsewhere. That’s just how human beings are wired. In terms of other countries, they are all looking to attain the same standard of life available in the west and will happily consume more fossil fuels to get there. Any lack of demand on the west’s side results in cheaper prices, spurring increased consumption in emerging markets. Furthermore, lets say you do succeed in increased fuel costs, thus reducing our collective standard of living. It will probably backfire when that happens, as your SV salary depends on their high standard of living. If the avg person’s purchasing power plummets, their demand for tech goods also plummets. After all, the overwhelming majority of tech goods satisfy wants, not needs, and discretionary purchases of new phones, Alexas and Sonos speakers are the first things to go out the window when survival is at stake. There goes that large salary and vested stocks. Now you’re stuck fighting for survival too. It’s a race to the bottom. There are only two real solutions: A source of energy more dense or portable than gasoline, or some form of population control. The first is difficult, the second is currently unthinkable for most people.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  I agree with everything you wrote, and hence why I think plastic bags and straws and recycling in general is a waste of time and energy (ironically). Reducing consumption by increased taxes (worldwide), and/or by reduced population, and finding an alternate source of fuel are the only solutions. But I doubt an alternative to fossil fuels with equivalent properties can be discovered in sufficient time.

fshaun 7y ago

I have never understood the argument that taxes on e.g. gasoline are regressive and this should not be raised. When we find an externality that is not accounted for in costs, are we to throw up our hands and say we cannot do anything because some of the increased costs will be passed on to consumers? The right amswer is not to avoid the tax but to compensate the mpst affected via redistributive policies like a negative income tax.

karatestomp 7y ago
Tax it, put the money toward public transit. Hell, I think that in an ideal world something similar would happen to traffic and parking tickets. More people parking illegally or speeding? More money goes to buses and trains.