3 ms·

> Many people rely on cars and, especially, utility vehicles for their livelihood and mobility. Slapping an extra tax on them without a viable alternative does

> Many people rely on cars and, especially, utility vehicles for their livelihood and mobility. Slapping an extra tax on them without a viable alternative does not reduce emissions, It is far from this simple. In the 2010's when a barrel of oil jumped to over $110 USD and gas prices spiked, people drove less and changed their purchasing habits to favour smaller vehicles. When the prices dropped, those behaviours reverted. That natural experiment shows us that there are a wide range of adaptations people will engage in that allow them to adjust to higher fuel prices while lowering carbon emissions. > it only makes people poorer. And this is why well-designed carbon tax programs include rebate and subsidy mechanisms to help relieve the financial burden and support the transition to EVs. We've also seen some governments shift their tax burdens around. e.g. lowering income tax and applying a carbon tax. This helps get more money back into peoples pockets while still sending a price signal that leads to a change in consumer behaviour.

mytailorisrich 5y ago
I think the price of oil is not key to what happened in France, apart perhaps from somewhat exacerbating the issue at a specific time. Again, they tried to slap an extra tax on fuel "because the environment", which people had no choice but to pay. Sure, people might drive slightly less if fuel prices get high but this only means less trips that can be avoided. Going to work, going to supermarket, using utility vehicles for business cannot be avoided in most cases. If you're a tradesperson or on low pay in a small town outside of Paris you depend on your vehicle for everything, you cannot "just drive less" and you cannot afford a band new one. So that extra tax directly reduced your (potentially already low) income without making any difference on emissions and the environment. Basically many people thought the government disconnected from reality and was treating them as cash cows when they were not that well off to start with. So, these measures must be staggered in time with a clear schedule so people can plan in advance and there must be viable EV alternatives for people, all the people, to switch to (viable means existing and affordable).

mytailorisrich 5y ago

I think the price of oil is not key to what happened in France, apart perhaps from somewhat exacerbating the issue at a specific time. Again, they tried to slap an extra tax on fuel "because the environment", which people had no choice but to pay. Sure, people might drive slightly less if fuel prices get high but this only means less trips that can be avoided. Going to work, going to supermarket, using utility vehicles for business cannot be avoided in most cases. If you're a tradesperson or on low pay in a small town outside of Paris you depend on your vehicle for everything, you cannot "just drive less" and you cannot afford a band new one. So that extra tax directly reduced your (potentially already low) income without making any difference on emissions and the environment. Basically many people thought the government disconnected from reality and was treating them as cash cows when they were not that well off to start with. So, these measures must be staggered in time with a clear schedule so people can plan in advance and there must be viable EV alternatives for people, all the people, to switch to (viable means existing and affordable).