3 ms·

That's not going to work. A lot of people (and industries) rely on cars to do their jobs. It's a lot of low-income households who rely most on cars because they

by jcfrei 5y ago

That's not going to work. A lot of people (and industries) rely on cars to do their jobs. It's a lot of low-income households who rely most on cars because they live in remote areas due to housing costs and have to commute to city centers to find work. Such a tax would cause a huge backlash in large parts of the population in any country and the government who enacts it would be quickly disbanded. We need subsidies to pay for the transitions (pay for changing people's heating, buying them electric cars, etc.). Financing this shouldn't be a problem for most developed countries at the current interest rates.

nradov 5y ago
That's why to be politically viable any carbon emissions tax would have to be phased in gradually over many years. That would give people adequate time to adjust their lifestyles and purchase more efficient vehicles. The average car in the US is 12 years old so the phase in period has to be longer than that.
dTal 5y ago
I'm all in favor of subsidies to help the disadvantaged, as a general matter of principle. But fundamentally, disrupting people's lifestyles is the point. Yes, it's going to radically shift the economics of all kinds of things, including commuting. That's exactly what needs to happen. There's got to be a big rebalancing, which is hopefully the sort of thing that the free market is good at. What we need to do is make sure there are enough safety nets and wealth redistribution so that no one gets left behind - again, as a general principle, not just over this one issue. All change is going to disproportionately impact the disadvantaged. But I don't think we can let that be an argument against change in general.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  People would rather have their lifestyles disrupted by global warming.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Yes, rich people in temperate zones would. I’m not so sure about poor people in the tropics though.
acdha 5y ago
We definitely need public financing — and especially things like HVAC should be table-stakes since it's also an effective jobs program — but we also need those ever-increasing taxes. Most of those people commuting in remote areas use high-emission, low-mileage vehicles for fashion reasons and they can afford to do so because the costs of that lifestyle have been heavily subsidized for decades. If we instituted a vehicle weight / mileage tax (to fund road repair as EVs cut into the already wildly inadequate gas tax) and send a message that gas prices will never be cheaper in the future, that would change rapidly because there wouldn't be any way to fool yourself into thinking that you could afford that huge SUV which has been keeping you broke for years. It takes a lot to disturb a deeply-entrenched status quo and I think taxes are key, but I would ramp them in slower: set a floor on the cost for a barrel of oil and increase it annually so the writing is on the wall but there's time to make major capital expenditures. The political backlash is a real problem, especially with the knowledge that the simple solutions like giving people financial assistance for replacing high-emissions vehicles would be met with a well-funded deluge of bad faith attacks (you can just hear the “why are they giving away Teslas to people who didn't earn them!” ads now). I suspect continued subsidies for things like EVs and solar would be possible but I wonder whether there could also be a low-rate loan subsidy program, especially for homeowners and businesses looking to electrify things like heaters, boilers, etc.
franckl 5y ago
You are right, a carbon tax without a fair and progressive redistribution is doomed to fail. This is partially why we had the "yellow vest" mouvement in France
baron_harkonnen 5y ago
> That's not going to work. A lot of people (and industries) rely on cars to do their jobs Unfortunately economic contraction is going to essential if we are going to reduce GHG emissions. We've tried the "full steam ahead, green energy will catch up!" approach for decades and it emissions have only gotten worse. Don't forget those same people that would suffer from not having cars will suffer even more under the worse case climate scenarios.

by jcfrei 5y ago

nradov 5y ago

That's why to be politically viable any carbon emissions tax would have to be phased in gradually over many years. That would give people adequate time to adjust their lifestyles and purchase more efficient vehicles. The average car in the US is 12 years old so the phase in period has to be longer than that.

dTal 5y ago

I'm all in favor of subsidies to help the disadvantaged, as a general matter of principle. But fundamentally, disrupting people's lifestyles is the point. Yes, it's going to radically shift the economics of all kinds of things, including commuting. That's exactly what needs to happen. There's got to be a big rebalancing, which is hopefully the sort of thing that the free market is good at. What we need to do is make sure there are enough safety nets and wealth redistribution so that no one gets left behind - again, as a general principle, not just over this one issue. All change is going to disproportionately impact the disadvantaged. But I don't think we can let that be an argument against change in general.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
People would rather have their lifestyles disrupted by global warming.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  Yes, rich people in temperate zones would. I’m not so sure about poor people in the tropics though.

acdha 5y ago

We definitely need public financing — and especially things like HVAC should be table-stakes since it's also an effective jobs program — but we also need those ever-increasing taxes. Most of those people commuting in remote areas use high-emission, low-mileage vehicles for fashion reasons and they can afford to do so because the costs of that lifestyle have been heavily subsidized for decades. If we instituted a vehicle weight / mileage tax (to fund road repair as EVs cut into the already wildly inadequate gas tax) and send a message that gas prices will never be cheaper in the future, that would change rapidly because there wouldn't be any way to fool yourself into thinking that you could afford that huge SUV which has been keeping you broke for years. It takes a lot to disturb a deeply-entrenched status quo and I think taxes are key, but I would ramp them in slower: set a floor on the cost for a barrel of oil and increase it annually so the writing is on the wall but there's time to make major capital expenditures. The political backlash is a real problem, especially with the knowledge that the simple solutions like giving people financial assistance for replacing high-emissions vehicles would be met with a well-funded deluge of bad faith attacks (you can just hear the “why are they giving away Teslas to people who didn't earn them!” ads now). I suspect continued subsidies for things like EVs and solar would be possible but I wonder whether there could also be a low-rate loan subsidy program, especially for homeowners and businesses looking to electrify things like heaters, boilers, etc.

franckl 5y ago

You are right, a carbon tax without a fair and progressive redistribution is doomed to fail. This is partially why we had the "yellow vest" mouvement in France

baron_harkonnen 5y ago

> That's not going to work. A lot of people (and industries) rely on cars to do their jobs Unfortunately economic contraction is going to essential if we are going to reduce GHG emissions. We've tried the "full steam ahead, green energy will catch up!" approach for decades and it emissions have only gotten worse. Don't forget those same people that would suffer from not having cars will suffer even more under the worse case climate scenarios.