4 ms·
I think bans are a pretty terrible idea. It implies that the alternatives aren't good enough. But due to the bans people will be forced to use them anyway. It'
by Aerroon 3y ago
I think bans are a pretty terrible idea. It implies that the alternatives aren't good enough. But due to the bans people will be forced to use them anyway.
It's great if you're an EV manufacturer though because you can rack up your price and customers won't have much of an alternative. Bonus points if the government also bans imports of EVs from certain other countries.
Even if this isn't the objective, it nevertheless is a way people will see the whole situation as.
- Teever 3y ago> I think bans are a pretty terrible idea. It implies that the alternatives aren't good enough. That could be true but we can't say for certain because the market is already so incredibly distorted by oil and gas subsidies. Automobiles in general are insanely subsidized in the form of state funded road infrastructure. There's nothing free market about transportation, especially in North America.
- username332211 3y agoCould you give me a description of said subsidies? It's just that the last time I saw a serious study measuring them, the study was pretty much a study on the ways to torture the semantics of the word subsidy. Most countries in the world also implement significant excise taxes on petroleum fuels. The American one is about 5%, while in Europe they can go to 40% excluding VAT.
- patrick451 3y agoOil and gas subsidies don't exist.
- valleyer 3y agoA literal reading of this comment is easily falsifiable[1][2], so can you explain what you mean? [1] <https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/15/climate/tax-breaks-oil-gas-us.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/15/climate/tax-breaks-oil-ga...> [2] a few examples under <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-A/chapter-1/subchapter-A/part-IV/subpart-D https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-A/chapte...>
- Teever 3y agoThat's absurd. Practically every industry gets some form of subsidies, and some much more than others. You're just regurgitating some O&G spin talking point that was put out to counter a recent report that may or may not have over estimated the amount of subsidies to O&G depending on your interpretation of the statistics. But that doesn't mean that O&G subsidies don't exist. How do I know? My salary comes from those subsidies.
- dzhiurgis 3y agoTrucks and buses are subsidised by cars
- beagle3 3y agoRoad infrastructure applies equally to gas powered and EVs
- jjav 3y ago> Automobiles in general are insanely subsidized in the form of state funded road infrastructure. EVs are automobiles too, using the same roads. Even if you're suggesting everyone should move to something non-automobile (bikes?) you still need the roads because society needs things like ambulances, fire trucks, garbage trucks, etc. You can't have a society without roads, they have existed for millenia before cars.
- hackerlight 3y ago> It implies that the alternatives aren't good enough. That's only true in the absence of any market failure, but in this case we have mispriced negative externalities. EDIT: Changed "unpriced" to "mispriced", since gas taxes exist as pointed out below.
- troyastorino 3y agoGas taxes are a direct mechanism to price the negative externalities. Yes, gas taxes also cover road infrastructure, but the amount of gas purchased (and therefore taxed) is directly proportional to the negative externality of CO2 emissions.
- hackerlight 3y ago> the amount of gas purchased (and therefore taxed) is directly proportional to the negative externality of CO2 emissions. This doesn't mean the gas taxes are big enough to correct the market failure. Your comment would be true even if we multiply gas taxes by 0.01, 0.1 or 10.0. I would prefer it if we just used properly calibrated (larger) gas taxes as the single mechanism. But voters hate that, so we're left with second best solutions.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hugh-avherald 3y agoI think the bans are due to externalities.