3 ms·

Not yet. The biggest road destroyers are heavy vehicles which are all still fossil fuel powered. The only part of the problem broken is that EV owners are no

Not yet. The biggest road destroyers are heavy vehicles which are all still fossil fuel powered. The only part of the problem broken is that EV owners are no longer subsidizing the damage done by walmart to a road. Raising fuel taxes is a win-win for everyone. It makes EVs more attractive and shipping garbage more expensive. It's an effective way to directly impact CO2 emissions.

dgfitz 2y ago
> The biggest road destroyers are heavy vehicles which are all still fossil fuel powered. How does EV trucking solve weight? It doesn’t, batteries are heavy. Edit: are batteries not heavy?
- plorkyeran 2y ago
  Nothing in the post you're responding to suggests that EV trucking would solve weight. If EV trucking did become common then the model of funding road infrastructure with fuel taxes would stop working, but that hasn't actually happened yet.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    So, instead of taxing fuel, the tax is at the "electric pump" and no money is saved, and the roads still get beat up? I think the theme is people are tired of spending an exorbitant amount of money of transportation fuel.
    - cogman10 2y ago
      Roads will always get beat up. Roads always need maintenance. The question is who will pay for it and how will it be funded. Another truth is that shipping and transportation are two major CO2 emitters. Climate change is real, and CO2 emissions are the primary driver of it. So, with that in mind, we have an already existing carbon tax both federally and in most states which directly correlates to CO2 emissions. And, conveniently, it is also directly linked to common needed infrastructure damaged the most by vehicles that use the most fuel. It's the fuel tax. Now, we could talk policy to handle people tired of spending money on transportation fuel. Perhaps we have a fuel tax break for people earning less than 100k. Perhaps we subsize the purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles. Perhaps we incentivize the production of small trucks, and we outlaw oversized pickup trucks and SUVs for personal use. All solvable problems that could be tackled with separate policy.
      - dgfitz 2y ago
        I’m not disputing climate change. I’m asking how to satiate people mad about gas prices. The rest of your point is moot.
        cogman10 2y ago
        The rest of my post specifically addressed what you are asking.
        dgfitz 2y ago
        I hate trump. This is why trump won. That response. I wish it wasn’t so.
JambalayaJimbo 2y ago
Heavy vehicles that ship goods are societally beneficial, personal vehicles are not (necessarily). We should penalize parking as the negative externality as well.
- cogman10 2y ago
  And roads will still need to be maintained if all personal vehicles are eliminated. So who should subsidize Amazon's usage of our roads in that scenario? Raising the fuel tax also disincentives personal vehicle ownership.

dgfitz 2y ago

> The biggest road destroyers are heavy vehicles which are all still fossil fuel powered. How does EV trucking solve weight? It doesn’t, batteries are heavy. Edit: are batteries not heavy?

plorkyeran 2y ago
Nothing in the post you're responding to suggests that EV trucking would solve weight. If EV trucking did become common then the model of funding road infrastructure with fuel taxes would stop working, but that hasn't actually happened yet.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  So, instead of taxing fuel, the tax is at the "electric pump" and no money is saved, and the roads still get beat up? I think the theme is people are tired of spending an exorbitant amount of money of transportation fuel.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    Roads will always get beat up. Roads always need maintenance. The question is who will pay for it and how will it be funded. Another truth is that shipping and transportation are two major CO2 emitters. Climate change is real, and CO2 emissions are the primary driver of it. So, with that in mind, we have an already existing carbon tax both federally and in most states which directly correlates to CO2 emissions. And, conveniently, it is also directly linked to common needed infrastructure damaged the most by vehicles that use the most fuel. It's the fuel tax. Now, we could talk policy to handle people tired of spending money on transportation fuel. Perhaps we have a fuel tax break for people earning less than 100k. Perhaps we subsize the purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles. Perhaps we incentivize the production of small trucks, and we outlaw oversized pickup trucks and SUVs for personal use. All solvable problems that could be tackled with separate policy.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      I’m not disputing climate change. I’m asking how to satiate people mad about gas prices. The rest of your point is moot.
      - cogman10 2y ago
        The rest of my post specifically addressed what you are asking.
        dgfitz 2y ago
        I hate trump. This is why trump won. That response. I wish it wasn’t so.

JambalayaJimbo 2y ago

Heavy vehicles that ship goods are societally beneficial, personal vehicles are not (necessarily). We should penalize parking as the negative externality as well.

cogman10 2y ago
And roads will still need to be maintained if all personal vehicles are eliminated. So who should subsidize Amazon's usage of our roads in that scenario? Raising the fuel tax also disincentives personal vehicle ownership.