4 ms·

This is cherry picking examples from different income bands. We know that people in higher income bands consume more fossil fuels per capita, on average. They w

This is cherry picking examples from different income bands. We know that people in higher income bands consume more fossil fuels per capita, on average. They would therefore pay more carbon tax. I would guess that Tesla owning households still have higher than average fossil consumption at present because their higher incomes also positively correlate with flying more and consuming more goods that were at least partially made with fossil fuels. The very poorest people in the US can't afford to drive even a used car.

sandworm101 5y ago
More fossile fuels/energy for thier lifestyles, yes. Gas for thier cars, no. London realized this as the early efforts to reduce costs for zero-emmission vehicles went to Tesla and BMW owners, not the tiny/cheap electric cars everyone expected to come to market.
- philipkglass 5y ago
  Nradov's post said revenue neutral carbon tax, not gas tax. That includes fossil energy consumed directly or indirectly.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > More fossile fuels/energy for thier lifestyles, yes. Gas for thier cars, no. "revenue neutral carbon tax where an equal amount of money is rebated to everyone" doesn't sound like it's specific to gas for cars. > London realized this as the early efforts to reduce costs for zero-emmission vehicles went to Tesla and BMW owners, not the tiny lightweight/cheap electric cars everyone expected to come to market. Is that bad? Normally those incentives are a fixed amount per car, so in climate improvement per dollar it should be similar or even better for big fancy cars. And anyone that designs a small cheap electric car can still get the incentive, so it's not like those fancy cars are to blame if there's a lack of them. And we are getting more variety as time passes. If you want to give less money to rich people, don't exclude them from the car incentives, give them an unconditional tax and let them get money back with the car incentives.
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    The congestion charge was meant to reduce congestion. Seeing giant teslas sail through without paying was not the intention of the zero emission exemption. Planners expected electric minis, not electric supercars.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      I don't think the people making the law are fools. If they didn't put in a size requirement, that's on purpose. Also big cars don't congest much more than small cars, do they? When you take into account the space between vehicles, the difference isn't that great. (And again if the issue is expensive cars specifically, you don't want a congestion charge or a fuel charge, you want a supercar charge or a high-income charge.)
- mrlonglong 5y ago
  No, it's meant to remove the most polluting vehicles from the London area, which it will succeed in doing. Remove the pollution and the health benefits are soon realised. Hopefully by the 2030s people will breathe a bit easier.

sandworm101 5y ago

More fossile fuels/energy for thier lifestyles, yes. Gas for thier cars, no. London realized this as the early efforts to reduce costs for zero-emmission vehicles went to Tesla and BMW owners, not the tiny/cheap electric cars everyone expected to come to market.

philipkglass 5y ago
Nradov's post said revenue neutral carbon tax, not gas tax. That includes fossil energy consumed directly or indirectly.
Dylan16807 5y ago
> More fossile fuels/energy for thier lifestyles, yes. Gas for thier cars, no. "revenue neutral carbon tax where an equal amount of money is rebated to everyone" doesn't sound like it's specific to gas for cars. > London realized this as the early efforts to reduce costs for zero-emmission vehicles went to Tesla and BMW owners, not the tiny lightweight/cheap electric cars everyone expected to come to market. Is that bad? Normally those incentives are a fixed amount per car, so in climate improvement per dollar it should be similar or even better for big fancy cars. And anyone that designs a small cheap electric car can still get the incentive, so it's not like those fancy cars are to blame if there's a lack of them. And we are getting more variety as time passes. If you want to give less money to rich people, don't exclude them from the car incentives, give them an unconditional tax and let them get money back with the car incentives.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  The congestion charge was meant to reduce congestion. Seeing giant teslas sail through without paying was not the intention of the zero emission exemption. Planners expected electric minis, not electric supercars.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    I don't think the people making the law are fools. If they didn't put in a size requirement, that's on purpose. Also big cars don't congest much more than small cars, do they? When you take into account the space between vehicles, the difference isn't that great. (And again if the issue is expensive cars specifically, you don't want a congestion charge or a fuel charge, you want a supercar charge or a high-income charge.)
mrlonglong 5y ago
No, it's meant to remove the most polluting vehicles from the London area, which it will succeed in doing. Remove the pollution and the health benefits are soon realised. Hopefully by the 2030s people will breathe a bit easier.