3 ms·
No, please don't tax something because it is wasteful or not, but tax something based on how much resources it uses. In fact, tax the resource usage not the act
by tda 5y ago
No, please don't tax something because it is wasteful or not, but tax something based on how much resources it uses. In fact, tax the resource usage not the activity.
Even an extremely efficient car uses a ton of energy to move around. New cars often have engines in the multiple hundred kW range, which is insane compared to any other appliance you own.
If fossil fuels were taxed properly, that would discourage using/wasting fossil fuels. But please don't tax based on what you feel is acceptable usage was wasteful usage, cause the atmosphere does not care if the CO2 came from kerosene on a plane bringing tourists to vacation, or if it was used to power the ambulance that brings you to the hospital.
But when we tax all fossil fuel uses equally and heavily, I'm sure the ambulances will still drive around cause they save lives, but weekend trips to the other side of the Atlantic will be a thing of the past.
- dataflow 5y ago> No, please don't tax something because it is wasteful or not, but tax something based on how much resources it uses. "Wasteful" = "using more resources than it genuinely needs". We're saying very, very similar things here. I don't find the difference between them significant enough to be worth arguing about honestly. I'm just suggesting an alternative that I think might be more viable, but if we go with your proposal, that's enough progress to make me happy.
- fsflover 5y ago> "using more resources than it genuinely needs" Are you going to create a commission which decides what a "genuine resource usage" is?
- dataflow 5y ago> Are you going to create a commission which decides what a "genuine resource usage" is? Uhm... if it's necessary, sure? I already suggested a starting point: the current state-of-the-art provides a baseline to compare against. If we need a commission to gauge this, then sure, how about have an agency like the EPA or DoE figure it out. We can even give a good name to products that meet high energy-efficiency standards... like, I don't know, maybe "Energy Star"?
- adrianN 5y agoRight, so do we ban cars because bicycles are more efficient?
- alistairSH 5y agoIt's semantics, but in this case, semantics do matter. There's a real difference in result between taxing gasoline per gallon and taxing the ownership of a fuel-inefficient vehicle. The latter is roughly equivalent to the US's CAFE standards and leads to gaming the system by manufacturers. The former is much harder to game - either you use the gasoline (and paid the tax at purchase) or you don't. Doesn't matter (to the tax authority) what car you drive - only how much gasoline you burn.
- qw 5y agoThe problem with bitcoin mining is that it is really easy to move the servers to a different country that does not have this tax.