4 ms·

I make about 20% of what people claim the SV crowd earns. I just filled up my gas tank. It cost me about $23, or around 6 cents per mile. Somewhere around $3.

I make about 20% of what people claim the SV crowd earns. I just filled up my gas tank. It cost me about $23, or around 6 cents per mile. Somewhere around $3. I could still afford to drive a fair amount even if gas cost ten times what it does now. There's no guarantee that would reduce demand enough. But if gas was made extremely expensive, then aren't we going to see this, but bigger? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests My idea is to have a huge fuel tax, but to return it to each citizen in equal amounts, not use it for general purposes, so that people who really need to burn a lot of fuel can, but those who don't are incentivized not to.

forcry 5y ago
>My idea is to have a huge fuel tax, but to return it to each citizen in equal amounts, not use it for general purposes, so that people who really need to burn a lot of fuel can, but those who don't are incentivized not to. Interesting. Have you described it in detail somewhere?
- 2arrs2ells 5y ago
  This general idea is called a revenue neutral carbon tax: ex https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/07/revenue-neutral-carbon-tax-climate-policy/ https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/07/revenue-neutral-c...
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    But people seem negative on it recently, and I'm not sure why. I don't see any feasible alternative and I'm getting cognitive dissonance from people who are getting more vocal about climate change being an emergency and aren't pushing this.
- rfrey 5y ago
  The notion of a carbon tax being revenue neutral is pretty widespread, in fact I think most carbon taxes are designed that way.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    I'm unclear on the gap between the "notion" and the protests in France. The Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend) is kind of inconsistent - it says that a revenue neutral tax is a "conservative" idea, then it has more about a "universal climate income" under "social justice". Widespread is not the same thing as generally accepted. I think I've been reading vaguely hostile stuff recently about carbon taxes from vaguely progressive sources, but I'm not sure why. I'm wondering if progressives are against it because it's considered conservative.
    - rfrey 5y ago
      I think one of the reasons is that it is a market-based solution that allows companies to pollute as long as they are willing to pay for it. Many progressives prefer an approach of behaviour and lifestyle modifications.
      - perl4ever 5y ago
        >I think one of the reasons is that it is a market-based solution that allows companies to pollute as long as they are willing to pay for it. Many progressives prefer an approach of behaviour and lifestyle modifications. I don't see how that hypothesis is compatible with regarding climate change as an existential threat. I mean, maybe it is potentially the end of the world for practical purposes, and maybe it isn't. But if it is, then concentrating on behavior modifications that are appealing to impose independently of CO2 levels seems like an expression of either a desire for human extinction or of a disbelief in the problem.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  It seems to be a right wing proposal that's been around for some time. That must be why I either didn't run across it or forgot; I mostly ignore conservative media.
Gibbon1 5y ago
I've come around to the idea that we should put excise taxes on the sale of new cars that use fossil fuels and use the revenue to help working class people replace their existing gasoline cars with electric[1]. The idea is help people do what you want them to do instead of apply the rubber hose. [1] One way to think about that is you force people buying new cars to be carbon neutral by paying to retire existing cars.
- erik_seaberg 5y ago
  I need to see most streets and apartment lots lined with chargers. I don’t personally have permission to install any.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  The goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In order to do that, it has to be done in a way that the masses will not revolt and eliminate the political leaders who want to prevent climate change. I think that your suggestion, while I guess it's mainstream and basically what's already being done in most places, is guaranteed to fail in both respects. If we tax one thing and subsidize another, without any linkage to CO2 emissions, then we will not get the reductions we need. We cannot reconcile the idea that CO2 is the problem, while maintaining that some CO2 is more equal than others. Can you explain further why you do not like the idea of pursuing the goal that matters, and prefer substituting one that doesn't? Do you personally, at work, observe how metrics and KPIs that aren't chosen well, lead to bad behavior?
  - Gibbon1 5y ago
    I see the fundamental problem is dependence on existing capital assets that emit CO2. Like gasoline and diesel cars and trucks. Focusing that seems reasonable that you a) don't want people to buy new ones. 2) want to expedite the retirement of current ones. Putting an excise tax on new fossil fueled cars would discourage manufacture and sales. Using the revenue to help working class people retire and replace their older fossil fueled vehicles with zero emissions ones reduces the number currently in service. The key word with that is 'help' as in help that do what's needed. Instead of carbon taxes which punish working class people for not doing something unspecified to fix the problem. That said I also support banning production of fossil fuel powered cars with enough forewarning that industry and the economy can adjust.
Godel_unicode 5y ago
And if you're poor and have to live far from your job (because you're poor) screw you? There are a lot of people who will be locked out of driving by this because they don't have the float to overpay for gasoline and wait for the refund. If the US had better public transit options, then maybe. But you have to do that first.

forcry 5y ago

>My idea is to have a huge fuel tax, but to return it to each citizen in equal amounts, not use it for general purposes, so that people who really need to burn a lot of fuel can, but those who don't are incentivized not to. Interesting. Have you described it in detail somewhere?

2arrs2ells 5y ago
This general idea is called a revenue neutral carbon tax: ex https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/07/revenue-neutral-carbon-tax-climate-policy/ https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/07/revenue-neutral-c...
- perl4ever 5y ago
  But people seem negative on it recently, and I'm not sure why. I don't see any feasible alternative and I'm getting cognitive dissonance from people who are getting more vocal about climate change being an emergency and aren't pushing this.
rfrey 5y ago
The notion of a carbon tax being revenue neutral is pretty widespread, in fact I think most carbon taxes are designed that way.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  I'm unclear on the gap between the "notion" and the protests in France. The Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend) is kind of inconsistent - it says that a revenue neutral tax is a "conservative" idea, then it has more about a "universal climate income" under "social justice". Widespread is not the same thing as generally accepted. I think I've been reading vaguely hostile stuff recently about carbon taxes from vaguely progressive sources, but I'm not sure why. I'm wondering if progressives are against it because it's considered conservative.
  - rfrey 5y ago
    I think one of the reasons is that it is a market-based solution that allows companies to pollute as long as they are willing to pay for it. Many progressives prefer an approach of behaviour and lifestyle modifications.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      >I think one of the reasons is that it is a market-based solution that allows companies to pollute as long as they are willing to pay for it. Many progressives prefer an approach of behaviour and lifestyle modifications. I don't see how that hypothesis is compatible with regarding climate change as an existential threat. I mean, maybe it is potentially the end of the world for practical purposes, and maybe it isn't. But if it is, then concentrating on behavior modifications that are appealing to impose independently of CO2 levels seems like an expression of either a desire for human extinction or of a disbelief in the problem.
perl4ever 5y ago
It seems to be a right wing proposal that's been around for some time. That must be why I either didn't run across it or forgot; I mostly ignore conservative media.

Gibbon1 5y ago

I've come around to the idea that we should put excise taxes on the sale of new cars that use fossil fuels and use the revenue to help working class people replace their existing gasoline cars with electric[1]. The idea is help people do what you want them to do instead of apply the rubber hose. [1] One way to think about that is you force people buying new cars to be carbon neutral by paying to retire existing cars.

erik_seaberg 5y ago
I need to see most streets and apartment lots lined with chargers. I don’t personally have permission to install any.
perl4ever 5y ago
The goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In order to do that, it has to be done in a way that the masses will not revolt and eliminate the political leaders who want to prevent climate change. I think that your suggestion, while I guess it's mainstream and basically what's already being done in most places, is guaranteed to fail in both respects. If we tax one thing and subsidize another, without any linkage to CO2 emissions, then we will not get the reductions we need. We cannot reconcile the idea that CO2 is the problem, while maintaining that some CO2 is more equal than others. Can you explain further why you do not like the idea of pursuing the goal that matters, and prefer substituting one that doesn't? Do you personally, at work, observe how metrics and KPIs that aren't chosen well, lead to bad behavior?
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  I see the fundamental problem is dependence on existing capital assets that emit CO2. Like gasoline and diesel cars and trucks. Focusing that seems reasonable that you a) don't want people to buy new ones. 2) want to expedite the retirement of current ones. Putting an excise tax on new fossil fueled cars would discourage manufacture and sales. Using the revenue to help working class people retire and replace their older fossil fueled vehicles with zero emissions ones reduces the number currently in service. The key word with that is 'help' as in help that do what's needed. Instead of carbon taxes which punish working class people for not doing something unspecified to fix the problem. That said I also support banning production of fossil fuel powered cars with enough forewarning that industry and the economy can adjust.

Godel_unicode 5y ago

And if you're poor and have to live far from your job (because you're poor) screw you? There are a lot of people who will be locked out of driving by this because they don't have the float to overpay for gasoline and wait for the refund. If the US had better public transit options, then maybe. But you have to do that first.