10 ms·

The externalities should be internalized.

by zardo 5y ago

BobbyJo 5y ago
We don't need to ban anything, just make it cost what it costs.
Manuel_D 5y ago
This is accomplished via gas taxes. If you drive this car only 100 miles a year, you're still emitting a lot less CO2 than driving a Prius 10,000 miles a year.
- zardo 5y ago
  It's not really accomplished unless the gas tax pulls that CO2 back down from the atmosphere.
  - BizarroLand 5y ago
    Per the CDC, A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. The weighted average price per ton for carbon credits from forestry and land-use projects that reduce emissions or remove carbon from the atmosphere has been on a steady upward path, rising from $4.33 per credit in 2019 to $4.73 per credit so far in 2021, with a spike to $5.60 per credit in 2020. So, spend $35/year or if you want to get fancy, the cost of 1 tank of gas per year to offset your carbon footprint from driving and enjoy a guilt-free year. Or we could fold that cost into gas, if you use 1 tank a week, 10/gallons a tank, that would be less than $0.02 as a carbon tax credit. I would be all for that. But, if you raised the price of gas $0.50 and funneled all of that money into funding carbon capture industries, I would also be all for that, and at that price point more people would search for public transportation or purchase EV's so that is a double win. But then again, these taxes would disproportionately affect the middle and lower classes in suburban and rural communities so that would make life far more difficult on people who already have it tough enough and manufacturers would probably shovel any taxes you put on them directly to the consumers as well, so I would say it's almost as if there isn't a single simple fix to the issue and only a multipronged approach that takes into account dozens of moving variables rolled out over time is the only viable solution.
  - 29083011397778 5y ago
    That closes the loop, for sure. But doesn't a carbon tax address your exact complaint, in that externalities should be internalised? It takes the externality (CO2 is bad because global warming) and makes it a cost for the person performing the activity (CO2 is bad because gas is expensive, and useage is therefore to be limited).
    - zardo 5y ago
      The cost of the pollution is it's effect on the environment and everyone living in it. Just collecting taxes does not address that. The tax would have to actually undue the pollution to eliminate the externality.
      - kortilla 5y ago
        Then driving a Prius doesn’t accomplish anything either.
        zardo 5y ago
        Driving a Prius for fun on the weekends is less damaging than driving a Viper. You might not get as much fun done though.
  - eru 5y ago
    A pigovian tax works, even if the proceeds are not used to fight the externalities. Pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere might or might not be a good idea. But that's a cost/benefit analysis that's independent of the carbon tax take.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  There surely needs to be some incorporation of need into the calculations. The rich control enough of our resources that they are unlikely to be put off by a tax, whereas everyday people would be crippled by taxes high enough to make a difference.
  - eru 5y ago
    Do you think this principle applies more generally? Tax incentives only work on poor people?
    - nicoburns 5y ago
      I think tax incentives (and indeed fines) proportional to wealth/income work on everyone. But if you make it flat then obviously they're going to have an outsized effect on the poor.
      - eru 5y ago
        Whether tax incentives need to be larger to work on richer people is an empirical question we can look into.
- Bud 5y ago
  Can we at least be honest? Come on. Gas taxes are hilariously regressive. The people—ALL the people—who can afford this kind of dumbass vehicle and who are willing to commit the offense of buying and operating it will never, ever be affected or restricted or motivated by any piddly gas taxes. So, no. No. Of course it's not actually accomplished by gasoline taxes. That's a fantasy. If you made gas taxes 1-2 orders of magnitude more progressive than they are right now, that would be a tiny start.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Huh? Are gas taxes a priced in externality or a way to punish the rich?
    - Bud 5y ago
      Asking the rich to pay even a fraction of their fair share is not "punishing" the rich. Just so we're clear, punishing them would involve, say, jailing them or confiscating all but $50k or so of their net worth and then making them work at Burger King for a month or two. That would be punishing. Asking for a more progressive and fair tax system does not "punish" anyone.
      - refurb 5y ago
        Huh? What do externalities have to do with that?
  - eru 5y ago
    How are gas taxes regressive? They seem perfectly flat to me, at least in relation to amount of petrol bought and burned.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > How are gas taxes regressive? As with most ad valorem (or fixed per unit) consumption taxes, because consumption as a share of income declines with increasing income, so total and marginal tax share drops with greater income.
- npunt 5y ago
  Apples and oranges. Something being driven 10k miles a year is being used for daily life activities, something being driven 100 miles is not. Consider what job it's doing, not what arbitrary market category it fits in.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    What, exactly, is the car that's being driven for 100 miles doing? Is it something the 10k mile car couldn't do even better? Is it something that even legitimately needs to be done? I agree this is a thing that can be done, but I disagree it's a job that it's doing - because stating its a job usually means there is some ultimate purpose to it.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      It's really, really, really common to have single purpose trucks that go about that far. Site-specific fuel trucks, plow trucks, etc.
    - npunt 5y ago
      I'm responding more to the point that gas taxes are some kind of effective solution and that category-based comparison is even relevant. Climate change demands we think outside categories and see what kinds of 'jobs to be done' we have to meet our needs and thrive, and then look at all available options to lower carbon footprint around those[1]. And look at some of these 'jobs' as less valuable than others, e.g. conspicuous consumption vs commuting to work to feed your family. Also a more specific issue here is car manufacturing itself is like 25% of the carbon footprint of a vehicle, so regardless of use it's still doing damage. [1] e.g. a solution may be that we take public transport, or micromobility, or relocate so we don't need to drive as far, or videoconference, or any number of other things that examine the full range of options we have to reach the goal.
      - eru 5y ago
        Having bureaucrats look at 'jobs to be done' sounds awfully intrusive and inefficient, and needlessly morally arbitrary. Just do a gas tax (or carbon tax) and be done with it. If you are worried about some specific use cases, just give those deserving people money so they can pay their taxes with that.
lucb1e 5y ago
I'm not getting this one, could you dumb it down for me? (Not sure if it has something to do with not being a native speaker or not.)
- skt5 5y ago
  In economics, an externality [0] is a cost that is not paid for by the buyer or the seller but generally society bears the cost. For example, when buying a pollution machine - the cost to the environment may not be factored into the purchase price despite it being there. Internalizing the externalities refers adding an additional cost to the purchase price to cover for the externality. In the example above for the pollution machine, this could be a carbon tax or a carbon offset. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
  - lucb1e 5y ago
    Understood, thanks!
55873445216111 5y ago
I agree! Add the cost of CO2 into the price of gas. But don't ban inefficient speciality cars. I happen to be someone who really enjoys driving performance cars that happen to get really poor fuel economy. I have no problem paying the cost of the CO2 I generate. But I find it very irritating when people say we need to ban these cars outright.
- brailsafe 5y ago
  I like performance cars. They're neat. I don't agree that poorer people should shoulder a greater burden for societal adaptation to threats. If you have a high polluting performance vehicle, maybe it can be restricted in a normalizing fashion when used for transportation or recreation within some arbitrary boundary, like speed limits to some extent (though I'm aware of the caveats), but then if you can throw money at it anyway, you should at least for some time be able to take it to a track where they can set their own rules. I don't think physical performance limiters should be placed on vehicles at all, especially ones that are grandfathered in, but some people shouldn't have the ability to just disregard things in daily in daily life that the place has democratically decided upon only because the money is available. Or maybe it could be a condition of licensing within a certain area. Great you get the car, but can only drive it where you don't need valid insurance. If you want to drive it anyway, you need to have a limiter, or the car is impounded
  - Maursault 5y ago
    There are a lot of valid arguments against ethanol, but performance is not one of them. If performance is the primary virtue, all performance vehicles should be burning 100% ethanol, and if in a place where sugarcane can be turned into ethanol, being carbon neutral. In other places, pay a corn-carbon tax.
  - 55873445216111 5y ago
    I agree we cannot burden poorer people. I think the least-worst way to handle the whole situation is with a carbon-tax and dividend.
  - eru 5y ago
fortran77 5y ago
Agreed! Tax people according to their body fat percentage: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-food-climate-obesity/obesity-contributes-to-global-warming-study-idUSL1572011320080515 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-food-climate-obesity/obes...

The externalities should be internalized.

by zardo 5y ago

The externalities should be internalized.

BobbyJo 5y ago

We don't need to ban anything, just make it cost what it costs.

Manuel_D 5y ago

This is accomplished via gas taxes. If you drive this car only 100 miles a year, you're still emitting a lot less CO2 than driving a Prius 10,000 miles a year.

zardo 5y ago
It's not really accomplished unless the gas tax pulls that CO2 back down from the atmosphere.
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  Per the CDC, A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. The weighted average price per ton for carbon credits from forestry and land-use projects that reduce emissions or remove carbon from the atmosphere has been on a steady upward path, rising from $4.33 per credit in 2019 to $4.73 per credit so far in 2021, with a spike to $5.60 per credit in 2020. So, spend $35/year or if you want to get fancy, the cost of 1 tank of gas per year to offset your carbon footprint from driving and enjoy a guilt-free year. Or we could fold that cost into gas, if you use 1 tank a week, 10/gallons a tank, that would be less than $0.02 as a carbon tax credit. I would be all for that. But, if you raised the price of gas $0.50 and funneled all of that money into funding carbon capture industries, I would also be all for that, and at that price point more people would search for public transportation or purchase EV's so that is a double win. But then again, these taxes would disproportionately affect the middle and lower classes in suburban and rural communities so that would make life far more difficult on people who already have it tough enough and manufacturers would probably shovel any taxes you put on them directly to the consumers as well, so I would say it's almost as if there isn't a single simple fix to the issue and only a multipronged approach that takes into account dozens of moving variables rolled out over time is the only viable solution.
- 29083011397778 5y ago
  That closes the loop, for sure. But doesn't a carbon tax address your exact complaint, in that externalities should be internalised? It takes the externality (CO2 is bad because global warming) and makes it a cost for the person performing the activity (CO2 is bad because gas is expensive, and useage is therefore to be limited).
  - zardo 5y ago
    The cost of the pollution is it's effect on the environment and everyone living in it. Just collecting taxes does not address that. The tax would have to actually undue the pollution to eliminate the externality.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      Then driving a Prius doesn’t accomplish anything either.
      - zardo 5y ago
        Driving a Prius for fun on the weekends is less damaging than driving a Viper. You might not get as much fun done though.
- eru 5y ago
  A pigovian tax works, even if the proceeds are not used to fight the externalities. Pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere might or might not be a good idea. But that's a cost/benefit analysis that's independent of the carbon tax take.
nicoburns 5y ago
There surely needs to be some incorporation of need into the calculations. The rich control enough of our resources that they are unlikely to be put off by a tax, whereas everyday people would be crippled by taxes high enough to make a difference.
- eru 5y ago
  Do you think this principle applies more generally? Tax incentives only work on poor people?
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    I think tax incentives (and indeed fines) proportional to wealth/income work on everyone. But if you make it flat then obviously they're going to have an outsized effect on the poor.
    - eru 5y ago
      Whether tax incentives need to be larger to work on richer people is an empirical question we can look into.
Bud 5y ago
Can we at least be honest? Come on. Gas taxes are hilariously regressive. The people—ALL the people—who can afford this kind of dumbass vehicle and who are willing to commit the offense of buying and operating it will never, ever be affected or restricted or motivated by any piddly gas taxes. So, no. No. Of course it's not actually accomplished by gasoline taxes. That's a fantasy. If you made gas taxes 1-2 orders of magnitude more progressive than they are right now, that would be a tiny start.
- refurb 5y ago
  Huh? Are gas taxes a priced in externality or a way to punish the rich?
  - Bud 5y ago
    Asking the rich to pay even a fraction of their fair share is not "punishing" the rich. Just so we're clear, punishing them would involve, say, jailing them or confiscating all but $50k or so of their net worth and then making them work at Burger King for a month or two. That would be punishing. Asking for a more progressive and fair tax system does not "punish" anyone.
    - refurb 5y ago
      Huh? What do externalities have to do with that?
- eru 5y ago
  How are gas taxes regressive? They seem perfectly flat to me, at least in relation to amount of petrol bought and burned.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > How are gas taxes regressive? As with most ad valorem (or fixed per unit) consumption taxes, because consumption as a share of income declines with increasing income, so total and marginal tax share drops with greater income.
npunt 5y ago
Apples and oranges. Something being driven 10k miles a year is being used for daily life activities, something being driven 100 miles is not. Consider what job it's doing, not what arbitrary market category it fits in.
- munk-a 5y ago
  What, exactly, is the car that's being driven for 100 miles doing? Is it something the 10k mile car couldn't do even better? Is it something that even legitimately needs to be done? I agree this is a thing that can be done, but I disagree it's a job that it's doing - because stating its a job usually means there is some ultimate purpose to it.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    It's really, really, really common to have single purpose trucks that go about that far. Site-specific fuel trucks, plow trucks, etc.
  - npunt 5y ago
    I'm responding more to the point that gas taxes are some kind of effective solution and that category-based comparison is even relevant. Climate change demands we think outside categories and see what kinds of 'jobs to be done' we have to meet our needs and thrive, and then look at all available options to lower carbon footprint around those[1]. And look at some of these 'jobs' as less valuable than others, e.g. conspicuous consumption vs commuting to work to feed your family. Also a more specific issue here is car manufacturing itself is like 25% of the carbon footprint of a vehicle, so regardless of use it's still doing damage. [1] e.g. a solution may be that we take public transport, or micromobility, or relocate so we don't need to drive as far, or videoconference, or any number of other things that examine the full range of options we have to reach the goal.
    - eru 5y ago
      Having bureaucrats look at 'jobs to be done' sounds awfully intrusive and inefficient, and needlessly morally arbitrary. Just do a gas tax (or carbon tax) and be done with it. If you are worried about some specific use cases, just give those deserving people money so they can pay their taxes with that.

lucb1e 5y ago

I'm not getting this one, could you dumb it down for me? (Not sure if it has something to do with not being a native speaker or not.)

skt5 5y ago
In economics, an externality [0] is a cost that is not paid for by the buyer or the seller but generally society bears the cost. For example, when buying a pollution machine - the cost to the environment may not be factored into the purchase price despite it being there. Internalizing the externalities refers adding an additional cost to the purchase price to cover for the externality. In the example above for the pollution machine, this could be a carbon tax or a carbon offset. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
- lucb1e 5y ago
  Understood, thanks!

55873445216111 5y ago

I agree! Add the cost of CO2 into the price of gas. But don't ban inefficient speciality cars. I happen to be someone who really enjoys driving performance cars that happen to get really poor fuel economy. I have no problem paying the cost of the CO2 I generate. But I find it very irritating when people say we need to ban these cars outright.

brailsafe 5y ago
I like performance cars. They're neat. I don't agree that poorer people should shoulder a greater burden for societal adaptation to threats. If you have a high polluting performance vehicle, maybe it can be restricted in a normalizing fashion when used for transportation or recreation within some arbitrary boundary, like speed limits to some extent (though I'm aware of the caveats), but then if you can throw money at it anyway, you should at least for some time be able to take it to a track where they can set their own rules. I don't think physical performance limiters should be placed on vehicles at all, especially ones that are grandfathered in, but some people shouldn't have the ability to just disregard things in daily in daily life that the place has democratically decided upon only because the money is available. Or maybe it could be a condition of licensing within a certain area. Great you get the car, but can only drive it where you don't need valid insurance. If you want to drive it anyway, you need to have a limiter, or the car is impounded
- Maursault 5y ago
  There are a lot of valid arguments against ethanol, but performance is not one of them. If performance is the primary virtue, all performance vehicles should be burning 100% ethanol, and if in a place where sugarcane can be turned into ethanol, being carbon neutral. In other places, pay a corn-carbon tax.
- 55873445216111 5y ago
  I agree we cannot burden poorer people. I think the least-worst way to handle the whole situation is with a carbon-tax and dividend.
- eru 5y ago

fortran77 5y ago

Agreed! Tax people according to their body fat percentage: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-food-climate-obesity/obesity-contributes-to-global-warming-study-idUSL1572011320080515 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-food-climate-obesity/obes...