7 ms·

Or you could say it's petty envy. It's about a tiny minority of vehicles that can easily cover in their price several times all the negative externalities. I w

Or you could say it's petty envy. It's about a tiny minority of vehicles that can easily cover in their price several times all the negative externalities. I want non polluting transport. Far more than you do, I'm pretty sure. I lived for years in Bucharest, the most polluted and congested city in Europe, with two air purifiers working non stop in my apartment. But I don't see anything productive in your comment. Mostly pettiness.

ResearchCode 5y ago
Romania is a tiny minority country, guess they could be exempt too then from all this whole climate change deal.
Ensorceled 5y ago
Not wanting two sets of rules, one for the rich and one for everyone else isn’t “pettiness”. Especially when we’re taking minimal steps to save the planet and the rich are already asking for special privileges.
- ResearchCode 5y ago
  Yes, and it would be a great way to convince the populace to take climate change seriously if the rich also needs to follow the rules.
- 1_player 5y ago
  This constant "eat the rich" mentality is doing more harm than good, and can't see the forest for the trees. If Ferrari were to close down, the impact is not on the rich guy that can't buy a new high-powered car, but the thousands of workers without a job, with the resulting hit to the economy. If it's not pettiness, it's short-sightedness and black-and-white thinking.
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    I would argue that almost all of society’s woes can be traced to wealth inequality and the legal trappings necessary to maintain that disparity, but, sure, fighting that is doing more harm than good.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >This constant "eat the rich" mentality is doing more harm than good asking for the same rules for the rich and the poor is "eat the rich"?
    - Ensorceled 5y ago
      It appears that is where we are now: trying to level the playing field between rich and poor is oppressing the rich. Actually it may be worse, trying to prevent the rich from gaining new privileges is now oppressive.
    - bmm6o 5y ago
      And it's not even that! It's about the same rules for all auto manufacturers.
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  Yes it is. You can own it if you want, but it's specifically about equality of outcome, not about having clean air. As for why it's harmful - it's hijacking the conversation. Like somebody else said below, we're fighting over 0.1 percent pollution, while ignoring hugely more advantageous moves. Want examples? Let's talk about taking all combustion cars, old or new, out of the cities. Bam, 10-40% reduction in damage to health. Let's encourage and build infrastructure for bikes and other small e-vehicles. Ocean commercial traffic. Waste burning in unsafe incinerators. Construction-related pollution. Each of those is a double digit share of either health impact or global pollution. But no, let's stop the rich from playing with toys instead.
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    > Yes it is. You can own it if you want, but it's specifically about equality of outcome, not about having clean air. How/When did wanting equality of outcome become "pettiness"? Also, how did this get projected and extrapolated to I'm not only petty but now I'm also against effective action like fighting urban sprawl (which is the real reason we need cars in first place). Also, my fundamental issue is that the rich will dodge all that other stuff you want as well; the way they are already getting the bulk of green incentives and abusing carbon offsets (see, for example [1] and [2]) This is going to be a long and difficult journey with many, many steps. And at each step of the way, people who claim to be allies will be saying "don't be petty" and "this is but a distraction, the real solution is over here" [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/06/wind-energy-subsidies-billions/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/06/wind-energy-subsidies... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-nature-conservancy-carbon-offsets-trees/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-nature-conservancy-c...
    - radu_floricica 5y ago
      Equality of outcome is not petty, it's evil. It's ok, I know what you mean :) you're talking about non-corruption, equality in the face of the law/rules and so on. I pretty much agree with it. I also mean what I said about hijacking the conversation - I happen to care very deeply about health-related pollution (less so about carbon), and I really really don't want the discourse led astray. I think carbon offsets are a fundamentally good idea that probably works. I see this kind of news you linked as proof that it does - in a working system I'd expect occasional abuse. I'd expect to see no abuse only if the system was so inefficient as to not be worse gaming. Is it efficient overall? For this you'd need statistical analysis and lots of data. But I like a framework where everybody can decide how much emiting carbon is worth to them - this way you can easily reach all the low hanging fruits, while still keeping those industries with high value per emission. For example I'd never want a blanket ban or quota to interfere with medical equipament manufacturers or high tech. Having the occasional rich guy buy a ferrari is a very small price. Plus, performance e-cars are already much faster.
perfunctory 5y ago
> can easily cover in their price several times all the negative externalities. Any calculations to demonstrate that this is indeed the case?
Broken_Hippo 5y ago
I don't understand. Why would you support an exception to clean air rules simply because they can purchase something expensive if you claim that clean transport is important to you? How is this petty?
- 1_player 5y ago
  Because in the grand scale of things, high-end supercars are a microscopic percentage of carbon emissions. And being affordable only to the very rich, can be taxed _a lot_ to offset that microscopic percentage. Should Italy prefer to reduce their carbon emissions by 0.1% while destroying one of the last few industries they're the best known for, with associated loss of jobs and livelihood for thousand of families? Of course they don't.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - thn-gap 5y ago
    That offset tax money would be better off spent into electric car research. If the rich want to keep their Ferraris, they can fund the research to make it abiding to the law. This would also preserve jobs if they ever cared. Allowing the 0.1% richest people to be above the law, because in the grand scale of things it's insignificant, seems outrageous for the average abiding citizen who have no choice. The rich would then always have an exception for all the sacrifices and cuts society has to do to preserve new generations. If a law is needed to save humankind, don't make exceptions to it purely based on capital of people, unless it's to help those in disadvantage.
gruez 5y ago
> Or you could say it's petty envy. It's about a tiny minority of vehicles that can easily cover in their price several times all the negative externalities. I'd be kind of on board with the exemption if there was a (high) cost paid for it, and that the cost was used to fund some sort of environmental project, but is that what Italy is actually asking for, or are they simply asking for an exemption, no strings attached?

ResearchCode 5y ago

Romania is a tiny minority country, guess they could be exempt too then from all this whole climate change deal.

Ensorceled 5y ago

Not wanting two sets of rules, one for the rich and one for everyone else isn’t “pettiness”. Especially when we’re taking minimal steps to save the planet and the rich are already asking for special privileges.

ResearchCode 5y ago
Yes, and it would be a great way to convince the populace to take climate change seriously if the rich also needs to follow the rules.
1_player 5y ago
This constant "eat the rich" mentality is doing more harm than good, and can't see the forest for the trees. If Ferrari were to close down, the impact is not on the rich guy that can't buy a new high-powered car, but the thousands of workers without a job, with the resulting hit to the economy. If it's not pettiness, it's short-sightedness and black-and-white thinking.
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  I would argue that almost all of society’s woes can be traced to wealth inequality and the legal trappings necessary to maintain that disparity, but, sure, fighting that is doing more harm than good.
- gruez 5y ago
  >This constant "eat the rich" mentality is doing more harm than good asking for the same rules for the rich and the poor is "eat the rich"?
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    It appears that is where we are now: trying to level the playing field between rich and poor is oppressing the rich. Actually it may be worse, trying to prevent the rich from gaining new privileges is now oppressive.
  - bmm6o 5y ago
    And it's not even that! It's about the same rules for all auto manufacturers.
radu_floricica 5y ago
Yes it is. You can own it if you want, but it's specifically about equality of outcome, not about having clean air. As for why it's harmful - it's hijacking the conversation. Like somebody else said below, we're fighting over 0.1 percent pollution, while ignoring hugely more advantageous moves. Want examples? Let's talk about taking all combustion cars, old or new, out of the cities. Bam, 10-40% reduction in damage to health. Let's encourage and build infrastructure for bikes and other small e-vehicles. Ocean commercial traffic. Waste burning in unsafe incinerators. Construction-related pollution. Each of those is a double digit share of either health impact or global pollution. But no, let's stop the rich from playing with toys instead.
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  > Yes it is. You can own it if you want, but it's specifically about equality of outcome, not about having clean air. How/When did wanting equality of outcome become "pettiness"? Also, how did this get projected and extrapolated to I'm not only petty but now I'm also against effective action like fighting urban sprawl (which is the real reason we need cars in first place). Also, my fundamental issue is that the rich will dodge all that other stuff you want as well; the way they are already getting the bulk of green incentives and abusing carbon offsets (see, for example [1] and [2]) This is going to be a long and difficult journey with many, many steps. And at each step of the way, people who claim to be allies will be saying "don't be petty" and "this is but a distraction, the real solution is over here" [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/06/wind-energy-subsidies-billions/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/06/wind-energy-subsidies... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-nature-conservancy-carbon-offsets-trees/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-nature-conservancy-c...
  - radu_floricica 5y ago
    Equality of outcome is not petty, it's evil. It's ok, I know what you mean :) you're talking about non-corruption, equality in the face of the law/rules and so on. I pretty much agree with it. I also mean what I said about hijacking the conversation - I happen to care very deeply about health-related pollution (less so about carbon), and I really really don't want the discourse led astray. I think carbon offsets are a fundamentally good idea that probably works. I see this kind of news you linked as proof that it does - in a working system I'd expect occasional abuse. I'd expect to see no abuse only if the system was so inefficient as to not be worse gaming. Is it efficient overall? For this you'd need statistical analysis and lots of data. But I like a framework where everybody can decide how much emiting carbon is worth to them - this way you can easily reach all the low hanging fruits, while still keeping those industries with high value per emission. For example I'd never want a blanket ban or quota to interfere with medical equipament manufacturers or high tech. Having the occasional rich guy buy a ferrari is a very small price. Plus, performance e-cars are already much faster.

perfunctory 5y ago

> can easily cover in their price several times all the negative externalities. Any calculations to demonstrate that this is indeed the case?

Broken_Hippo 5y ago

I don't understand. Why would you support an exception to clean air rules simply because they can purchase something expensive if you claim that clean transport is important to you? How is this petty?

1_player 5y ago
Because in the grand scale of things, high-end supercars are a microscopic percentage of carbon emissions. And being affordable only to the very rich, can be taxed _a lot_ to offset that microscopic percentage. Should Italy prefer to reduce their carbon emissions by 0.1% while destroying one of the last few industries they're the best known for, with associated loss of jobs and livelihood for thousand of families? Of course they don't.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thn-gap 5y ago
  That offset tax money would be better off spent into electric car research. If the rich want to keep their Ferraris, they can fund the research to make it abiding to the law. This would also preserve jobs if they ever cared. Allowing the 0.1% richest people to be above the law, because in the grand scale of things it's insignificant, seems outrageous for the average abiding citizen who have no choice. The rich would then always have an exception for all the sacrifices and cuts society has to do to preserve new generations. If a law is needed to save humankind, don't make exceptions to it purely based on capital of people, unless it's to help those in disadvantage.

gruez 5y ago

> Or you could say it's petty envy. It's about a tiny minority of vehicles that can easily cover in their price several times all the negative externalities. I'd be kind of on board with the exemption if there was a (high) cost paid for it, and that the cost was used to fund some sort of environmental project, but is that what Italy is actually asking for, or are they simply asking for an exemption, no strings attached?