3 ms·
A carbon tax is still pretty important. If you can only push through one of the two politically it's not clear to me an ICE ban is the right choice. In ten yea
by reitzensteinm 6y ago
A carbon tax is still pretty important. If you can only push through one of the two politically it's not clear to me an ICE ban is the right choice.
In ten years at the current rate of progress, EVs will be well past their tipping point economically and sales will crater anyway. If you add substantial carbon tax on the fuel, they're done.
And a carbon tax will help with all sorts of other emissions, transportation being only about 10%.
A new car sales ban does help car companies see the writing on the wall, but in the EU the direction is crystal clear anyway.
I feel like pointing at a graph of carbon in the atmosphere is an unfair response to the parent comment, who isn't denying the problem and is just talking tactics.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- reitzensteinm 6y agoWell I took the time to reply toomuchtodo, so I'm just going to paste my response here. It appears politically untenable in the US. But so does a new ICE ban. Caifornia has passed a 2035 ban, but it has flirted with a carbon tax too in parts. Canada has a carbon tax, and a 2040 ban. Australia had a carbon tax, with no ICE ban, but to our eternal shame repealed it when a conservative government regained power. India has an ICE ban scheduled and a carbon tax. Norway has their aggressive 2025 ban, but has had a carbon tax that covers about half their emissions since the 90s. The EU doesn't have one yet, but I would bet a lot of money they will by 2030. It's not clear to me that they're all that different in terms of political will required. The same countries are interested in both. Although the specific level of tax that can be passed on carbon may not be sufficient for the desired result. An ICE ban is in theory blanket, although exceptions are going to creep in.