3 ms·
> any political theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies There is a compromise position - accepting that driving a car is right, but also accepting t
by zajio1am 4y ago
> any political theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies
There is a compromise position - accepting that driving a car is right, but also accepting that everyone must pay for its externalities, w.r.t. CO_2 by uniform revenue-neutral carbon tax, like any other fossil CO_2 emission.
Revenue-neutral carbon tax is an approach proposed by many economists, but governments are hesitant to use that and instead go with selective bans and subsidies.
- lisper 4y ago> driving a car is right, but also accepting that everyone must pay for its externalities Sure, but what most people mean when they say they have a "right" to something is that they are entitled to that thing without strings attached. Also, there are factual disagreements about what the externalities of driving actually are. For example, should you have to pay for the people who suffer respiratory illnesses because of vehicle emissions? The cost of accidents? By what mechanism should these costs be assessed and payment made? How should the costs be distributed? If I drive 5000 miles a year should I pay the same as someone who drives 10,000? And how exactly do you assess the cost of moving the needle on an existential threat by a teeny tiny bit? And just look at people's reaction to the recent increases in the cost of gas! They are indignant, outraged, because they think that they are entitled to cheap gas. It's their right. "Pay for the externalities" is a fine principle, but very hard to put into practice.
- giantg2 4y agoAnd it's likely that the diesel trucks contribute the most die to fuel type, miles driven, etc. So cost to individual personal vehicles would likely be low, while the price of goods shipped via trucks would increase to offset those taxes.