3 ms·

Those are great, and I'm all in favor to alternatives to gasoline, but most people aren't buying new cars these days. In fact, the age of the average car in the

Those are great, and I'm all in favor to alternatives to gasoline, but most people aren't buying new cars these days. In fact, the age of the average car in the US is at all time highs. These subsidies aren't moving the needle enough. The reality is that most people will simply be forced to pay more for their commute. This is the government using the stick when they should try and use the carrot.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
People are still buying new and used vehicles (as it is unavoidable if you cannot rely on public transportation), and with a mixture of policy, they will be encouraged to buy EVs. > This is the government using the stick when they should try and use the carrot. You can provide as much carrots as you want and people will still say it's not enough. Everyone wants to freeload, no one wants to pay the true cost of burning fossil fuels for transportation (which would be >$10/gallon if you bake CO2 emission and health costs in).
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > Everyone wants to freeload, no one wants to pay the true cost of burning fossil fuels for transportation (which would be >$10/gallon if you bake CO2 emission and health costs in). If we want to talk about externalities in a balanced way, we can’t pick and choose. You can’t just recognize CO2 from burning gas or specific health issues, because that is the same as artificially picking what you want to allow and not allow. You have to also price in the externalities and opportunity costs of the alternative. In the case of electric vehicles, it is everything from raw materials (mining), to the reduced quality of life due to limited range of EVs, to child labor in the supply chain, to the geopolitical implications of using certain battery suppliers like CATL, to pollution (not just greenhouse gases from car production or electrical utilities but other environmental pollutants as well), to increased tire wear from heavier vehicles, and more. Maybe no on wants to pay the true cost of fossil fuels but no one wants to even talk about the true cost of EVs let alone pay it. I don’t know which is “better” but I suspect the math will be more complicated and not support heavyweight taxation.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - RGamma 2y ago
    Whatever the case we do not want to run out of accessible oil and fuck up the climate because that little detour would end modern civilization and prevent it for as long as new oil forms at scale (on the order of 10^8 years). Calculate the cost of that. Oil is incredibly precious.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >Everyone wants to freeload, no one wants to pay the true cost of burning fossil fuels for transportation I was ready to buy an FEV this year. Instead, my company laid me off to get record profits, my state and country gaslit me to belive unemployment is low and the economy is great (while also taking about mysterious headwinds. Almost like we're heading towards a recession...) , and the job market went from an annoying but reasonable hoop to a whole-ass circus. I've been getting spanked all year and people are asking me why I'm destroying the environment with my 2008 Sedan? Clearly no one wants me to even afford rent at this point.
dangus 2y ago
I think about this the other way around. The federal government and other states have artificially low gas taxes that are a direct subsidy of gasoline car dependence. A state like California imposing a tax like this makes them one of the few states that's actually aware how much the consumption of a gallon of gas costs society and manages to charge someone for it. - The federal gas tax has been 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993, and has not increased to account for inflation - Vehicles are more fuel efficient than in the past, which has reduced the demand for gas by the gallon on an individual basis. - The cost of infrastructure materials has increased (e.g., building new roads and bridges) There is a very decent argument to be had that nobody is actually paying the societal cost of driving, that all of society just loses value by driving. In other words, each mile you drive in your car incurs costs on the rest of society that nobody directly pays, and therefore everyone pays. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp75-46PnMY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp75-46PnMY
jonstewart 2y ago
A sudden $.65/gal increase seems steep. There are, however, a lot of negative externalities—probably much greater than $.65/gal—from gasoline that aren’t baked into current prices. Other posts here reference significant savings from longterm health improvements. I’m all for public transit and California needs more of it. At the same time, gas is really bad and so perhaps deserves a stick, just like cigarettes?

toomuchtodo 2y ago

People are still buying new and used vehicles (as it is unavoidable if you cannot rely on public transportation), and with a mixture of policy, they will be encouraged to buy EVs. > This is the government using the stick when they should try and use the carrot. You can provide as much carrots as you want and people will still say it's not enough. Everyone wants to freeload, no one wants to pay the true cost of burning fossil fuels for transportation (which would be >$10/gallon if you bake CO2 emission and health costs in).

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> Everyone wants to freeload, no one wants to pay the true cost of burning fossil fuels for transportation (which would be >$10/gallon if you bake CO2 emission and health costs in). If we want to talk about externalities in a balanced way, we can’t pick and choose. You can’t just recognize CO2 from burning gas or specific health issues, because that is the same as artificially picking what you want to allow and not allow. You have to also price in the externalities and opportunity costs of the alternative. In the case of electric vehicles, it is everything from raw materials (mining), to the reduced quality of life due to limited range of EVs, to child labor in the supply chain, to the geopolitical implications of using certain battery suppliers like CATL, to pollution (not just greenhouse gases from car production or electrical utilities but other environmental pollutants as well), to increased tire wear from heavier vehicles, and more. Maybe no on wants to pay the true cost of fossil fuels but no one wants to even talk about the true cost of EVs let alone pay it. I don’t know which is “better” but I suspect the math will be more complicated and not support heavyweight taxation.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- RGamma 2y ago
  Whatever the case we do not want to run out of accessible oil and fuck up the climate because that little detour would end modern civilization and prevent it for as long as new oil forms at scale (on the order of 10^8 years). Calculate the cost of that. Oil is incredibly precious.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>Everyone wants to freeload, no one wants to pay the true cost of burning fossil fuels for transportation I was ready to buy an FEV this year. Instead, my company laid me off to get record profits, my state and country gaslit me to belive unemployment is low and the economy is great (while also taking about mysterious headwinds. Almost like we're heading towards a recession...) , and the job market went from an annoying but reasonable hoop to a whole-ass circus. I've been getting spanked all year and people are asking me why I'm destroying the environment with my 2008 Sedan? Clearly no one wants me to even afford rent at this point.

dangus 2y ago

I think about this the other way around. The federal government and other states have artificially low gas taxes that are a direct subsidy of gasoline car dependence. A state like California imposing a tax like this makes them one of the few states that's actually aware how much the consumption of a gallon of gas costs society and manages to charge someone for it. - The federal gas tax has been 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993, and has not increased to account for inflation - Vehicles are more fuel efficient than in the past, which has reduced the demand for gas by the gallon on an individual basis. - The cost of infrastructure materials has increased (e.g., building new roads and bridges) There is a very decent argument to be had that nobody is actually paying the societal cost of driving, that all of society just loses value by driving. In other words, each mile you drive in your car incurs costs on the rest of society that nobody directly pays, and therefore everyone pays. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp75-46PnMY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp75-46PnMY

jonstewart 2y ago

A sudden $.65/gal increase seems steep. There are, however, a lot of negative externalities—probably much greater than $.65/gal—from gasoline that aren’t baked into current prices. Other posts here reference significant savings from longterm health improvements. I’m all for public transit and California needs more of it. At the same time, gas is really bad and so perhaps deserves a stick, just like cigarettes?