5 ms·

This ignores the motivations for subsidizing electric vehicles, namely damage to the environment from burning fossil fuels and air pollution. There's a debate

by bink 4y ago

This ignores the motivations for subsidizing electric vehicles, namely damage to the environment from burning fossil fuels and air pollution. There's a debate to be had about how much better EVs are for the environment but I don't think it's reasonable to ignore such things when developing public policy. For the record I voted against Prop 30.

elzbardico 4y ago
Really, cars are not even close being the main culprit in terms of carbon emissions globally speaking. And at this time we should think if it wouldn't be cheaper and more realistic to invest in mitigation for a slightly warmer climate.
- chimprich 4y ago
  > Really, cars are not even close being the main culprit in terms of carbon emissions globally speaking There are a lot of contributors, so you have to tackle a lot of them. Transport is one of the biggies. > And at this time we should think if it wouldn't be cheaper and more realistic to invest in mitigation for a slightly warmer climate. I despair that this idea keeps coming up, even on forums such as this. It's not like this is an original idea. There have been a bunch of studies that blow this concept out of the water. It's far more expensive to deal with the results of climate change than to avert it. There's also the huge human cost of not dealing with it, and the issue that you don't fix something by kicking the can down the road. The problem is only going to get worse the longer you leave it. It's like dealing with your house being on fire by taking your jacket off.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  "Main culprit" is irrelevant, both because emissions are pretty well spread between numerous major activity/economic sectors. Even if it wasn't, we still wouldn't say "well shucks, X isn't the MAIN cause of Y, so we shouldn't do anything about it" https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data#Sector https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... By the way, in the EU for example, passenger cars account for 60% of CO2 emissions related to transportation.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
It also ignores the twenty billion dollars in subsidies the United States government provides to the fossil fuel industry: https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-how-the-united-states-can-restart-international-cooperation/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-global-fossil-f... ...which has been turning in record profits: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/08/oil-companies-profits-inflation/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/08/oil-companie... In the first quarter of 2022, US oil industry profits TRIPLED: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/these-top-5-oil-companies-just-raked-in-35-billion-while-americans-pay-more-at-the-pump/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/these-top-5-oil-com...

by bink 4y ago

elzbardico 4y ago

Really, cars are not even close being the main culprit in terms of carbon emissions globally speaking. And at this time we should think if it wouldn't be cheaper and more realistic to invest in mitigation for a slightly warmer climate.

chimprich 4y ago
> Really, cars are not even close being the main culprit in terms of carbon emissions globally speaking There are a lot of contributors, so you have to tackle a lot of them. Transport is one of the biggies. > And at this time we should think if it wouldn't be cheaper and more realistic to invest in mitigation for a slightly warmer climate. I despair that this idea keeps coming up, even on forums such as this. It's not like this is an original idea. There have been a bunch of studies that blow this concept out of the water. It's far more expensive to deal with the results of climate change than to avert it. There's also the huge human cost of not dealing with it, and the issue that you don't fix something by kicking the can down the road. The problem is only going to get worse the longer you leave it. It's like dealing with your house being on fire by taking your jacket off.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
"Main culprit" is irrelevant, both because emissions are pretty well spread between numerous major activity/economic sectors. Even if it wasn't, we still wouldn't say "well shucks, X isn't the MAIN cause of Y, so we shouldn't do anything about it" https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data#Sector https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... By the way, in the EU for example, passenger cars account for 60% of CO2 emissions related to transportation.

KennyBlanken 4y ago

It also ignores the twenty billion dollars in subsidies the United States government provides to the fossil fuel industry: https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-how-the-united-states-can-restart-international-cooperation/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/reforming-global-fossil-f... ...which has been turning in record profits: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/08/oil-companies-profits-inflation/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/08/oil-companie... In the first quarter of 2022, US oil industry profits TRIPLED: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/these-top-5-oil-companies-just-raked-in-35-billion-while-americans-pay-more-at-the-pump/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/these-top-5-oil-com...