4 ms·

However, by that argument, we should just impose a high tax on all combustion engine cars, or perhaps simply introduce an appropriate carbon tax, instead of ban

However, by that argument, we should just impose a high tax on all combustion engine cars, or perhaps simply introduce an appropriate carbon tax, instead of banning the combustion engine. Some of the reasons we don't want to do that are: 1. A carbon tax is regressive and might result in the middle class still being just about able to afford cars, but the lower class completely unable to, which would be unfair. 2. By forcing the shift away from the combustion engine with a ban, rather than just nudging away from it with a tax, we're providing a stronger spur to innovation. Both of these reasons apply to supercars to a large extent: 1. Elites being able to buy combustion engine (super)cars, while the rest of society cannot, would be unfair. 2. Forcing companies to innovate in the case of supercars, which provide a greater engineering challenge, increases the chance that the all the relevant engineering obstacles are solved for "normal" cars. IMO the two end-points: 1. We just introduce a sufficiently high carbon tax, together with appropriate redistribution to make up for its regressiveness, and let the free market decide whether combustion engines are still affordable after internalising the externality. 2. We ban the combustion engine on the basis that we're all in this together and we want to make sure that the transition definitely does occur. are defensible. The middle-ground where we tax supercars, but ban all other combustion engine cars is far less so.

josephcsible 5y ago
> 1. A carbon tax is regressive and might result in the middle class still being just about able to afford cars, but the lower class completely unable to, which would be unfair. I hear similar things to this a lot. Doesn't every good have some level of money required to be able to afford it? Are you saying that it's unfair that some people have more money than others?
- gnomewascool 5y ago
  > Doesn't every good have some level of money required to be able to afford it? Yes, of course. The point here is that a carbon tax further skews the situation in favour of the rich. We, as a society, accept the current situation as a compromise between fairness and "market efficiency", and hence are worried by shifts away from it. To a large extent this is a "status quo bias", but it is natural — if people could afford something until now, but are suddenly being told that they won't be able to, they'll be, rightly or wrongly, unhappy.

josephcsible 5y ago

> 1. A carbon tax is regressive and might result in the middle class still being just about able to afford cars, but the lower class completely unable to, which would be unfair. I hear similar things to this a lot. Doesn't every good have some level of money required to be able to afford it? Are you saying that it's unfair that some people have more money than others?

gnomewascool 5y ago
> Doesn't every good have some level of money required to be able to afford it? Yes, of course. The point here is that a carbon tax further skews the situation in favour of the rich. We, as a society, accept the current situation as a compromise between fairness and "market efficiency", and hence are worried by shifts away from it. To a large extent this is a "status quo bias", but it is natural — if people could afford something until now, but are suddenly being told that they won't be able to, they'll be, rightly or wrongly, unhappy.