What I'm saying is, if the price of gasoline is raised to its "true" cost, according to projections of what unchecked warming will cost, what if that's not enou

What I'm saying is, if the price of gasoline is raised to its "true" cost, according to projections of what unchecked warming will cost, what if that's not enough to eliminate gas powered cars or climate change in general? I'm not arguing that we can live with continued warming, but if we go and determine quantitatively two independent things without pre-judgement, we can't guarantee they will match. You think there should be zero IC cars, but what if properly priced gasoline isn't enough of a deterrent to get people to stop driving them? What if the true cost of gasoline is a lot higher than in the US, but not much higher than in the most taxed places right now? What I'm arguing is not should we do this or that, but that I suspect nobody is serious when they talk about externalities as they would not make decisions based on them. It seems reasonable to say the end of the world can't be converted to dollars. But the idea of externalities being priced in or not implies that the damage can be priced and then it is a logical possibility that charging for it isn't enough to bring it to zero. It bugs me when people are inconsistent and incorporate ideas into their arguments that they don't believe in, more for their aura. It's popular to sneer at forcing things into a one-dimensional quantitative straitjacket. Fine. But some arguments are inherently quantitative.