4 ms·

> no vehicles should be produced Listen, I’m as radical as any of them, especially when it comes to the climate, but you can’t propose no new vehicles be produ

> no vehicles should be produced Listen, I’m as radical as any of them, especially when it comes to the climate, but you can’t propose no new vehicles be produced and be taken seriously. We need outputs -governed regulation around CO2 And we need it now. Stopping vehicle production is a band aid over the symptom, not the cause. Most harmful CO2 comes from general electricity production anyway.

hedora 3y ago
I think new ICE engines should include a $200/ton atmospheric carbon capture fee based on their expected lifetime fuel consumption. (That works out to a $2/gallon tax. I’m fine with charging it at the pump, especially if established at the same time as a universal basic income scheme).
- analognoise 3y ago
  That would only hurt poor people. $2/gallon extra would cause overnight riots.
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    that's the only way to incentivize people to optimize their routes, habits, switch to hybrid/electrics, otherwise consequences can be much tougher in 30-50 years with no way to fix it.
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      Poor people cannot afford an EV now, and they cannot afford a $2/gallon tax. Taking away options without supplying any new ones will cause a large number of people to be unable to commute to work and huge economic upheaval.
      - riku_iki 3y ago
        I don't see how you come to such conclusion, I think $2/gallon tax will be some fraction of total ownership cost for the car (fuel, car cost, insurance, maintenance), those who can't afford that fraction can't afford car too.
        HWR_14 3y ago
        There are many people out there who can barely afford a car. On average gasoline accounts for ~16% of people's transportation budgets and ~2.5% of their take-home pay (obviously, these numbers are using average everything). A $2/gallon tax is an increase of a little more than 50% (not in California, but using the US average price). So that's more than 1.25% of their tax home pay and 8% of their transportation cost. That's a lot. And again, those are averages. For people at the bottom it's worse. It's not a lot if you are making six-figures. But for a lot of people it quite literally puts driving to work as too expensive.
        riku_iki 3y ago
        > So that's more than 1.25% of their tax home pay its totally not a lot given we are talking about future of planet and humanity and that penalties on children of exactly the same people will be much higher if we won't stop pollute the planet.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        analognoise 3y ago
        If the only way to save the "future of humanity" is by sacrificing the poor, I don't want to save humanity.
        riku_iki 3y ago
        tax is applied on everyone in proportion they release CO2. "Poor" can move to public transit or optimize their routes. What do you propose?
  - hedora 3y ago
    That’s why I suggested UBI for the pump tax alternative. (Most poor people don’t buy new cars.)
  - tonyedgecombe 3y ago
    If you wanted to introduce a carbon tax then you could return the money to the population as a carbon dividend. The poor would be better off (because they don't consume much anyway) and everybody else would have an incentive to reduce their emissions.
- kimixa 3y ago
  This would only work if every source of atmospheric carbon was equally taxed - otherwise you get incentives to have indirect carbon usage, be it in costs of manufacture, or energy generation through other means. Otherwise you get BS like scrapping vehicles that took significant amounts of atmospheric carbon to produce, just because they have a slightly better gas mileage. It should only be encouraged if the total over the lifetime of the vehicle is better, but manufacturing costs are often excluded. Plus this naturally excludes those who can't afford the upfront cost of a new vehicle - even if everything was taxed "correctly" by this logic and so was lower cost in the long run.
RecycledEle 3y ago
If anyone can wants to stop new vehicles from being produced, I hope they at least are honest enough to be a subsistence farmer who refused to use computers.

hedora 3y ago

I think new ICE engines should include a $200/ton atmospheric carbon capture fee based on their expected lifetime fuel consumption. (That works out to a $2/gallon tax. I’m fine with charging it at the pump, especially if established at the same time as a universal basic income scheme).

analognoise 3y ago
That would only hurt poor people. $2/gallon extra would cause overnight riots.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  that's the only way to incentivize people to optimize their routes, habits, switch to hybrid/electrics, otherwise consequences can be much tougher in 30-50 years with no way to fix it.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    Poor people cannot afford an EV now, and they cannot afford a $2/gallon tax. Taking away options without supplying any new ones will cause a large number of people to be unable to commute to work and huge economic upheaval.
    - riku_iki 3y ago
      I don't see how you come to such conclusion, I think $2/gallon tax will be some fraction of total ownership cost for the car (fuel, car cost, insurance, maintenance), those who can't afford that fraction can't afford car too.
      - HWR_14 3y ago
        There are many people out there who can barely afford a car. On average gasoline accounts for ~16% of people's transportation budgets and ~2.5% of their take-home pay (obviously, these numbers are using average everything). A $2/gallon tax is an increase of a little more than 50% (not in California, but using the US average price). So that's more than 1.25% of their tax home pay and 8% of their transportation cost. That's a lot. And again, those are averages. For people at the bottom it's worse. It's not a lot if you are making six-figures. But for a lot of people it quite literally puts driving to work as too expensive.
        riku_iki 3y ago
        > So that's more than 1.25% of their tax home pay its totally not a lot given we are talking about future of planet and humanity and that penalties on children of exactly the same people will be much higher if we won't stop pollute the planet.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        analognoise 3y ago
        If the only way to save the "future of humanity" is by sacrificing the poor, I don't want to save humanity.
        riku_iki 3y ago
        tax is applied on everyone in proportion they release CO2. "Poor" can move to public transit or optimize their routes. What do you propose?
- hedora 3y ago
  That’s why I suggested UBI for the pump tax alternative. (Most poor people don’t buy new cars.)
- tonyedgecombe 3y ago
  If you wanted to introduce a carbon tax then you could return the money to the population as a carbon dividend. The poor would be better off (because they don't consume much anyway) and everybody else would have an incentive to reduce their emissions.
kimixa 3y ago
This would only work if every source of atmospheric carbon was equally taxed - otherwise you get incentives to have indirect carbon usage, be it in costs of manufacture, or energy generation through other means. Otherwise you get BS like scrapping vehicles that took significant amounts of atmospheric carbon to produce, just because they have a slightly better gas mileage. It should only be encouraged if the total over the lifetime of the vehicle is better, but manufacturing costs are often excluded. Plus this naturally excludes those who can't afford the upfront cost of a new vehicle - even if everything was taxed "correctly" by this logic and so was lower cost in the long run.

RecycledEle 3y ago

If anyone can wants to stop new vehicles from being produced, I hope they at least are honest enough to be a subsistence farmer who refused to use computers.