5 ms·

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

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
  > I don't agree that poorer people should shoulder a greater burden for societal adaptation to threats. I don't get that? If do adopt a carbon tax, then the rich guy who wants to drive a performance car pays a lot more, than the poor person who take the bus. > 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 [...] That sounds awfully intrusive and full of loopholes, that only people who can afford expensive lobbyists and lawyers can exploit. > [...] 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. How would paying your democratically-decided-on carbon tax be the same as disregarding anything?
  - CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
    >I don't get that? If do adopt a carbon tax, then the rich guy who wants to drive a performance car pays a lot more, than the poor person who take the bus. But the poor guy with a beat 20 year old car in a badly insulated rental pays more than the rich guy with his Tesla and energy neutral villa.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      Good, do we care about the planet or cheap access to highly emitting vehicles.
      - CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
        Why not tax the rich more and use that money to help the poor emit less?
        kortilla 5y ago
        That doesn’t work. As long as the cheap option is available that’s what people will use. Unless you’re suggesting we tax the cheap option, in which case you’re saying the same thing.
- kortilla 5y ago
  It sounds like you’re mad that it goes fast and don’t care about taxing actual emissions.
willis936 5y ago
Making egregious polluting a rich-only club? Outright banning sounds more attractive.
nosianu 5y ago
> Add the cost of CO2 into the price of gas. Is there a cost? I would say it is priceless - because we do not have any mechanism to funnel that money into undoing the CO2. And no, planting trees are not the opposite of taking oil from deep underground. Once that oil is out it remains in the above-surface carbon cycle. While it is underground it would never even be part of it. So any price would be made up - and just funneled to some interest group. The "compensation" does not actually compensate anything. This is the danger of only thinking in "money". I paid, problem magically solved!
- avar 5y ago
  We have that mechanism: carbon sequestration. It's what taxes on gasoline should be directly funding.

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
> I don't agree that poorer people should shoulder a greater burden for societal adaptation to threats. I don't get that? If do adopt a carbon tax, then the rich guy who wants to drive a performance car pays a lot more, than the poor person who take the bus. > 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 [...] That sounds awfully intrusive and full of loopholes, that only people who can afford expensive lobbyists and lawyers can exploit. > [...] 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. How would paying your democratically-decided-on carbon tax be the same as disregarding anything?
- CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
  >I don't get that? If do adopt a carbon tax, then the rich guy who wants to drive a performance car pays a lot more, than the poor person who take the bus. But the poor guy with a beat 20 year old car in a badly insulated rental pays more than the rich guy with his Tesla and energy neutral villa.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    Good, do we care about the planet or cheap access to highly emitting vehicles.
    - CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
      Why not tax the rich more and use that money to help the poor emit less?
      - kortilla 5y ago
        That doesn’t work. As long as the cheap option is available that’s what people will use. Unless you’re suggesting we tax the cheap option, in which case you’re saying the same thing.
kortilla 5y ago
It sounds like you’re mad that it goes fast and don’t care about taxing actual emissions.

willis936 5y ago

Making egregious polluting a rich-only club? Outright banning sounds more attractive.

nosianu 5y ago

> Add the cost of CO2 into the price of gas. Is there a cost? I would say it is priceless - because we do not have any mechanism to funnel that money into undoing the CO2. And no, planting trees are not the opposite of taking oil from deep underground. Once that oil is out it remains in the above-surface carbon cycle. While it is underground it would never even be part of it. So any price would be made up - and just funneled to some interest group. The "compensation" does not actually compensate anything. This is the danger of only thinking in "money". I paid, problem magically solved!

avar 5y ago
We have that mechanism: carbon sequestration. It's what taxes on gasoline should be directly funding.