4 ms·

They really should have two exceptions, one for electric airplanes and the other for planes fueled entirely with atmospheric CO2-sourced fuels (CO2 + H2O -> ren

They really should have two exceptions, one for electric airplanes and the other for planes fueled entirely with atmospheric CO2-sourced fuels (CO2 + H2O -> renewable energy -> jet fuel). Neither of those options are all that economically viable just yet, however.

nradov 3y ago
The government shouldn't pick winners in terms of specific technologies. They have a terrible track record for doing that and usually fail to anticipate innovations. Plus we end up with a whole new department of highly paid government bureaucrats writing and enforcing rules without doing anything productive. If we want lower CO2 emissions then just tax those and let the free market sort out specific solutions.
- photochemsyn 3y ago
  A ban on coal-fired Stanley Steamers makes a lot of sense, from the perspective that governments should promote transport technologies that reduce smog and other air pollution. Extending this to diesel trucks (affiliated with a lot of childhood asthma) - assuming you have electric trucks available is reasonable.
jeffbee 3y ago
There should also be an exemption for magic carpets, since those exist to the same extent.
- turbo_fart 3y ago
  Magic carpets don't need to be exempted since they wouldn't fit into any category
Ancalagon 3y ago
Boiled down to one exception: carbon neutral flights.
- jfengel 3y ago
  Except that you need to make it clear that it's actually carbon neutral. There are numerous ways to pretend to be carbon neutral without actually accomplishing anything, like "carbon offsets". (I don't mean to completely discount the notion of carbon offsets. If you spent money to build solar panels sequestering carbon, then yeah, at least in theory you could genuinely offset your carbon. But right now there are too many dubious ways to count an "offset".) So yeah, it would be better to give people the single rule and let innovation find ways to use it. But if it's just accounting innovation, and not actual technological innovation, it's worse than just dictating specifics.

nradov 3y ago

The government shouldn't pick winners in terms of specific technologies. They have a terrible track record for doing that and usually fail to anticipate innovations. Plus we end up with a whole new department of highly paid government bureaucrats writing and enforcing rules without doing anything productive. If we want lower CO2 emissions then just tax those and let the free market sort out specific solutions.

photochemsyn 3y ago
A ban on coal-fired Stanley Steamers makes a lot of sense, from the perspective that governments should promote transport technologies that reduce smog and other air pollution. Extending this to diesel trucks (affiliated with a lot of childhood asthma) - assuming you have electric trucks available is reasonable.

jeffbee 3y ago

There should also be an exemption for magic carpets, since those exist to the same extent.

turbo_fart 3y ago
Magic carpets don't need to be exempted since they wouldn't fit into any category

Ancalagon 3y ago

Boiled down to one exception: carbon neutral flights.

jfengel 3y ago
Except that you need to make it clear that it's actually carbon neutral. There are numerous ways to pretend to be carbon neutral without actually accomplishing anything, like "carbon offsets". (I don't mean to completely discount the notion of carbon offsets. If you spent money to build solar panels sequestering carbon, then yeah, at least in theory you could genuinely offset your carbon. But right now there are too many dubious ways to count an "offset".) So yeah, it would be better to give people the single rule and let innovation find ways to use it. But if it's just accounting innovation, and not actual technological innovation, it's worse than just dictating specifics.