3 ms·
Sounds like the same story as risk compensation. "If you let people wear seat belts, they'll drive recklessly and die more." I don't believe it for the same re
by ReactiveJelly 5y ago
Sounds like the same story as risk compensation. "If you let people wear seat belts, they'll drive recklessly and die more."
I don't believe it for the same reasons. Though I agree that what we actually need for climate change is a seemingly-impossible amount of political coordination. A global pollution tax (not just on CO2) which no country or state can race to the bottom to escape.
So many people are categorically "anti-globalist" (I don't know what this means, but that's the sentiment I feel from them) that I have no idea if we can pull it off.
- kennywinker 5y agoA pollution tax is tool to increase the price in order to decrease consumption. Literally an attempt artificially cause the same effect as if polluting was LESS efficient. I’m not saying efficiency isn’t valuable. I like an efficient process as much as the next nerd. What I am saying is that we can’t consume our way out of global warming. The total carbon cost of a tesla over it’s lifespan is in the same order of magnitude as that of a regular car (i.e. about half). The only choice that has a significant impact on climate change is to “consume less” driving. I.e. bikes, public transit, etc. those are 10x or 100x choices. But if there isn’t good bike or transit infrastructure where you live - i.e. it’s not an available choice - then an electric is better than nothing.