5 ms·

Well taxes on cars and fuel are being paid. So what additions are you talking about? Also, it's certainly fair to be in favor of something and to have an opini

• lotsofpulp 3y ago
  If you think US suburban living is more detrimental than beneficial, the answer would be whatever level of taxation forces people to give up their suburban and a exurban lifestyles.
  • thfuran 3y ago
    No, that's not what pricing in externalities is. It'd be taxing at whatever level is necessary to pay for the damages caused, not at the level that forces people not to do the damage.
    • lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Nature does not offer the option of “paying for the damages caused”. We cannot fix it or replace it like a fungible good. You either prevent the damage from occurring, or you deal with the consequences. E.g. the damage to communities from being in isolated residences in unwalkable communities where kids cannot freely play outside has no dollar amount.
      • thfuran 3y ago
        >We cannot fix it or replace it like a fungible good. That rather depends on exactly what we're talking about. CO2 can be stripped from the atmosphere, for example. It's just somewhat expensive. >E.g. the damage to communities from being in isolated residences in unwalkable communities where kids cannot freely play outside has no dollar amount. Sure it does. Even deaths have reasonably well established values, legally speaking. And things like expected future medical costs or lost productivity are much more straightforward to assign a value.
        • lotsofpulp 3y ago
          Our opinions will have to differ then. There is no number I would accept for the loss kids experience by not having a “right to roam” due to being cordoned by paths for high speed vehicles on all sides.
          • thfuran 3y ago
            Then why aren't you spending 100% of your income on trying to change policy regarding zoning/density and transit availability?
            • lotsofpulp 3y ago
              Probability of success is too low to make it a worthwhile investment. Also, affecting change in zoning/local efforts is useless. It would have to be a federal (and maybe global) level tax on fossil fuels, otherwise the arbitrage opportunities make it ineffective.
    • metabagel 3y ago
      > It'd be taxing at whatever level is necessary to pay for the damages caused For global warming, the cost of the damage is astronomical.
      • thfuran 3y ago
        But the cost per mile driven isn't. Regardless, pricing in externalities is about preventing market distortion by buyers foisting the costs of goods/services onto other parties, not about directly deciding what people are permitted or able to buy.
  • giantrobot 3y ago
    "Hey everyone, we need you abandon the single biggest asset you own for pennies on the dollar. Then move into some shit hole apartment building with paper thin walls. Oh no you won't own it, you'll just pay someone else who owns it and will evict you for any reason at all. Don't forget you'll have the added convenience of mass transit on public transit's schedule, including cancellations." I wonder why people aren't jumping at the chance to move into dense cities?
• thejohnconway 3y ago
  Taxes on fuel are clearly not enough, and not being spent on direct mitigation, which is necessary. The taxes need to, for example, be enough to pay for carbon extraction, plus the cleanup or costs of pollution from tire particulates, etc., etc. America is totally governmentally dysfunctional and I have no solution (I'm not American, I live in the UK, which is not that much better.)