11 ms·

For anyone curious, if you made a similarly sized gas-powered pickup with an i4 engine, it would be penalized more than a full-sized pickup for being too fuel i

For anyone curious, if you made a similarly sized gas-powered pickup with an i4 engine, it would be penalized more than a full-sized pickup for being too fuel inefficient, despite likely getting much better mileage than an F-150 because, since 2011, bigger cars are held to a lesser standard by CAFE[1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy#Overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy...

MostlyStable 2y ago
Example #5621 that a simple carbon tax would be miles better than the complex morass of regulations we currently have.
- aidenn0 2y ago
  That's overly reductive. 1. Poorer people tend to drive older vehicles, so if you solely encourage higher fuel economies by taxing carbon emissions, then the tax is (at least short-term) regressive. 2. You can work around #1 by applying incentives for manufacturers to make more efficient cars should lead any carbon tax 3. If you just reward companies based on fleet-average fuel economy without regard to vehicle size, then it would be rather bad for US car companies (who employ unionized workers) that historically make larger cars than Asian and European companies. 4. So the first thing done was to have a separate standard for passenger vehicles and light-trucks, but this resulted in minivans and SUVs being made in such a way as to get the light-truck rating 5. We then ended up with the size-based calculation we have today, but the formula is (IMO) overly punitive on small vehicles. Given that the formula was forward looking, it was almost certain to be wrong in one direction or the other, but it hasn't been updated.
  - bflesch 2y ago
    Meanwhile jet fuel for private jets is (and remains) not taxed at all, even in the EU.
    - cogman10 2y ago
      Which is bonkers. If ever there was a thing that should be taxed it's jet fuel for private jets. 300% tax on private jet fuel would be reasonable. The emissions just to shuttle rich people from one side of the country to the next (For some, multiple times per day) is insane. You should need to be a billionaire just to afford flying private jets and it should still eat a significant portion of your income if that's what you choose to do. And for what? Like, we live in the modern era, why does anyone need to travel from NY to Florida to Texas to California in a day?
      - Gibbon1 2y ago
        I have a suspicion the reason why super wealthy people like say Musk but he isn't the only one hate subways and high speed rail is because they fly everywhere. You might like if you could get on the subway in Glen Park and be at lands end in half an hour. You might like getting on a high speed rail and being in LA in 4 hours. These guy will never ride a subway or take a train anywhere.
        gonzoflip 2y ago
        I'm no Musk fanboy, but it is funny you mention him not liking subways or high speed rail because didn't he try to build a subterranean high speed rail?
        AlexandrB 2y ago
        The hyperloop was a shit idea from day one and thus far no one has been able to make it work. It's also entirely possible that Elon Musk floated this as a distraction to stop the development of "regular" high speed rain in California[1]. The Las Vegas "loop"[2], on the other hand, is basically a parody of a subway - with a fraction of the capacity. > In July 2021, the peak passenger flow was recorded at 1,355 passengers per hour. As a comparison Toronto's subway can handle 28,000 passengers per hour[3] per direction or more. [1] https://www.jalopnik.com/did-musk-propose-hyperloop-to-stop-california-high-spee-1849402460/ https://www.jalopnik.com/did-musk-propose-hyperloop-to-stop-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_Convention_Center_Loop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_Convention_Center_Lo... [3] https://dailyhive.com/toronto/ttc-toronto-subway-station-ridership-2018 https://dailyhive.com/toronto/ttc-toronto-subway-station-rid...
  - breakyerself 2y ago
    Carbon taxes become progressive with the simple step of returning the revenue to taxpayers as a dividend payment using the existing social security payment infrastructure. Richer people have such outsized carbon footprints that most people would get back more in dividends than they lost in higher costs.
  - MostlyStable 2y ago
    All carbon tax is inherently regressive but that's also trivially fixable. Make it revenue neutral and give every citizen a flat portion of the total collected revenue. Bam, it is now progressive, since on average richer people will spend more on fuel (and therefore the tax) even though it is likely a much smaller percentage of their spending. Every single one of your ideas has problems that are solved by a carbon tax. Taxes are simple, they accomplish what you want, and they don't have loopholes. A carbon tax will _never_ have the unintended consequence of making emissions worse. Many of our current regulations, including the one I was responding to do exactly that because they actually cause people to buy larger trucks than they otherwise would with worse fuel efficiency. A carbon tax might not on it's own be enough to solve the problem (especially if you set it to low), but no matter what level you set it, it will help. Thanks to unintended consequences, many of our current regulations are actively counter productive, while _also_ having negative economic and other costs.
    - abakker 2y ago
      All costs are regressive to people with less ability to bear them. By making them not regressive we don't change behavior! It doesn't matter if they're regressive if the objective is to get people to not drive or to burn less gas. Shifting the cost to the rich doesn't change behavior and it doesn't reduce actual carbon. There's a lot more low-income emitters than high income ones.
      - MetaWhirledPeas 2y ago
        > Shifting the cost to the rich doesn't change behavior and it doesn't reduce actual carbon. Shifting cost to the emitters is a better way to put it. If a factory can make 10m in upgrades over time to reduce their carbon tax burden by 15m over time, they are definitely going to do it. So I disagree: I say it does change behavior and it does reduce actual carbon. > There's a lot more low-income emitters than high income ones Whether that's true or not it does not mean a carbon tax would not 'reduce actual carbon'.
        otterley 2y ago
  - danans 2y ago
    > 1. Poorer people tend to drive older vehicles, so if you solely encourage higher fuel economies by taxing carbon emissions, then the tax is (at least short-term) regressive. You give it back to poor as a income-phased out refundable tax credit. Crucially, base it not on how much they drive or consume, but on their income. Name it something like the "Worker's Energy Credit". In the worst case, it cancels out the carbon tax spent by them commensurate with their lower income. In the best case poor people who don't drive much actually come out ahead, and it's just a very progressive sales tax. The rich might hate it, and call it "redistribution", which is fine because that's exactly what it is, and what taxes have always been, but this one would redistribute downwards instead of upwards, and incentivize lower carbon emissions by those who can afford it.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      > The rich might hate it, and call it "redistribution", which is fine because that's exactly what it is, and what taxes have always been, but this one would redistribute downwards instead of upwards, and incentivize lower carbon emissions by those who can afford it. Larry Page would be pumped. His annual salary is $1. I feel pretty strongly that adding exceptions and loopholes to taxes only benefit wealthy people, which is the opposite of the intent. I would be interested in reading a study where all the tax laws in the country were burned down and rebuilt, with no loopholes or exceptions. Also, eliminate borrowing against a stock portfolio. That is downright evil.
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        > I feel pretty strongly that adding exceptions and loopholes to taxes only benefit wealthy people, which is the opposite of the intent. It depends what the exception is. If the exceptions are "we treat a form of income received disproportionately by the rich a 'not income' and tax it at a lower rate, and on top of that we add an extra tax on top of income tax on labor income, and cap the larger part of that extra tax, too, to avoid burdening high earners", that helps the rich, sure. But there are plenty of exceptions possible that don't do that.
      - danans 2y ago
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    Are you saying used car sales would have a carbon tax? I've never heard anyone suggest anything like that. It's just a tax on new items.
  - xvokcarts 2y ago
    Looks like as long as only positive change is allowed to touch the poor, there will be little change.
    - austhrow743 2y ago
      Going to let us burn because not doing so would be regressive.
  - AdrianB1 2y ago
    If you want to reduce carbon emissions, if the tax is regressive or not does not matter as long as you tax emissions. If you want to mix too many things, you will not get a good solution for any.
  - DrNosferatu 2y ago
    This.
  - nullc 2y ago
    > 1. Poorer people tend to drive older vehicles, so if you solely encourage higher fuel economies by taxing carbon emissions, then the tax is (at least short-term) regressive. The idea that policy makers care about this in any meaningful sense is absurd given the EV mandates, as EV's radically change the lifecycle costs of cars in a way that is absolutely destructive to people who aren't wealthy. EV's lower the 'fueling' cost but shift part of it into large cashflow crushing battery replacement costs. Automobiles have been a significant engine in elevating less wealthy americans because you can buy a old junky car for very little and keep it limping along with use-proportional fuel costs and minor maintenance. Even if it's an inefficient car, you use it to go to work, so you're making money to pay for the fuel. Less work, less work fuel required. EV's significantly break the model and will push many more less wealthy people onto predatory financing which they'll never escape. Yet policy makers refuse to even discuss the life-cycle cashflow difference of EVs, and continue to more forward with policies to eventually mandate their use. > it was almost certain to be wrong in one direction or the other, but it hasn't been updated. It's been broken all along. We've had decades to fix it.
  - renewiltord 2y ago
    Yeah that’s the truth. The mass of poor people are the predominant polluters. They produce little of value and pollute a lot. So the question then is whether you care about the environment or about the poor and most people would rather the latter.
  - morepedantic 2y ago
    TIL poor people can't pollute, so their market segment shouldn't be incentivized to cut pollution. TIL that US car companies won't make smaller cars in the face of different regulations, even though they made larger cars in response to current regulations. The only way to avoid perversions is to tax the problem directly. The market will adjust to all proxies in unintended and harmful ways.
    - parineum 2y ago
      A disincentive on a thing you don't want makes people choose another thing that you may or may not want. The only way to avoid perversions is to incentivize the things you want. Taxing cigarettes led to vaping. Maybe less bad but still a nuisance.
      - morepedantic 2y ago
        Are you agreeing with me, or did you drop a negative twice?
        parineum 2y ago
        You're statement is not true. Disincentives don't make people make good choices, they make them make different choices. Incentives guide people to make a specific choice.
        morepedantic 2y ago
        It is the role of a central planner to pick a particular outcome, and it's also the worst strategy of the modern era. Everything which is not forbidden is allowed. Your belief that you should make the positive choice on behalf of others is the most dangerous philosophy of the 20th century.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- timewizard 2y ago
  Fuel is already taxed. What would a "carbon tax" add here?
- rcpt 2y ago
  The purpose of the CAFE regulations is very explicitly to favor American automakers who make big trucks.
  - tlb 2y ago
    It wasn't the intended purpose. It turned out that way because the Detroit lobbyists were smarter and more motivated than the government policy people, and they bamboozled them.
    - smallmancontrov 2y ago
      The congress critters knew what they were doing and didn't do it for free.
  - aidenn0 2y ago
    That was one of several purposes.
- bgnn 2y ago
  why can't we just tax the gas at the pump? this is, at least, what I'm used to in Europe.
  - brianwawok 2y ago
    We do. But it’s a super regressive tax. Lots of very poor people depend on a bad MPG car to get to work and live.
    - bgnn 2y ago
      that's a different problem. US cities used to have good publhc transport, but the urvanization policies since 50s is car-centric. plus, because of the American cars having huge engines they have bad MPG. The current situation US is in is nothing to do with the tax regime.
    - morepedantic 2y ago
      If you subsidize polluting life-styles, you'll get pollution. You think the rich suffer from pollution and car dependency? It's not at all clear that taxing gas will lead to worse outcomes for the poor. It's entirely clear that subsidizing pollution from the poor will lead to worse outcomes for the planet.
      - kaishiro 2y ago
        What isn’t clear about the fact that increasing commuting costs for those living paycheck to paycheck leads to a worse outcome?
        morepedantic 2y ago
        Because you're only considering first-order effects. Behaviors, markets, and systems will evolve around the new rules. Public transit could improve. People could trade in SUVs for hybrid sedans. People could carpool. People could bike. People could walk. Corner stores could re-open. People could demand zoning changes, instead of fighting every nearby development.
- ponector 2y ago
  I think the best way is to tax fuel itself. This way worse mpg result in more tax. Tax diesel more than gasoline, LNG less.
  - michpoch 2y ago
    This is already done, in Europe most of the fuel costs are taxes.
  - ChadNauseam 2y ago
    That makes sense, but there would be no incentive to switch to an engine that emits less carbon for the same fuel consumption (if such a thing exists)
    - AdrianB1 2y ago
      You don't create carbon out of thin air, it's from the fuel, so burning the same quantity of fuel will result in the same quantity of carbon, no matter how the engine works. Therefore a tax on fuel is a tax on carbon.
      - idiotsecant 2y ago
        Incomplete combustion is a big component of emissions, and it's exactly what you're saying doesn't exist
        cma 2y ago
        Those eventually degrade to CO2 so the increased warming from them compared to co2 by mass is temporary, like with methane.
        CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
        Yes but since incomplete combustion is inverse correlated with fuel efficiency (unburned fuel is wasted fuel), it's not really a trade off. What is a trade off is NO emissions vs fuel efficiency. Burning your fuel oxygen rich will burn of more fuel, but also makes more NO (due to higher temperatures if I remember correctly).
- guywithahat 2y ago
  I don’t think it would be possible to produce a carbon tax that’s simple
  - patmcc 2y ago
    Tax the fuel. Gasoline now has a $X/gallon tax, as does propane, as does coal, whatever. What is the difficulty with that?
    - kasey_junk 2y ago
      It’s extremely regressive. You’d need to also give a rebate based on income level.
      - Spooky23 2y ago
        That’s the excuse that is used for agriculture. They sell a vision of a Fisher Price toy farm, but make policy for giant Midwest farms. The proverbial blue collar truck owner is already screwed. Random surburban dude should be paying through the nose for his F-250. Create demand for fuel efficiency, and you’ll have cars like my dad’s 1993 Escort Wagon, that got 45mpg.
      - patmcc 2y ago
        Give everybody $1000 (or whatever) to offset that. Ends up being neutral for some folks, a net benefit to the poor, and a net cost to the rich. This is already how lots of jurisdictions handle regressive taxes.
      - morepedantic 2y ago
        Tax the poor for carbon emission. They'll adjust. People will walk, bike, take the bus, car pool, and buy used hybrids instead of mustangs. PS, regressive use taxes are 100% moral, fine, upstanding, and ethical.
        kasey_junk 2y ago
        > regressive use taxes are 100% moral, fine, upstanding, and ethical Turns out you are wrong.
- conductr 2y ago
  This has been a known problem and could be changed if the political will to make common sense policy changes and corrections when needed was anywhere near existing. Unfortunately, we live in a [political] dystopia
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > a simple carbon tax would be miles better than the complex morass of regulations we currently have Doesn't this just punt the morass into the magic variable of one's carbon footprint? How about this: fleet efficiency standards are stupid, anachronistic and counterproductive. Scrap them. Then, separarately, create a consumer-side rebate based on a vehicle's mileage. (Because a gas tax breaks American brains.)
  - SecretDreams 2y ago
    > How about this: fleet efficiency standards are stupid, anachronistic and counterproductive. Scrap them. Then, separarately, create a consumer-side rebate based on a vehicle's mileage. (Because a gas tax breaks American brains.) It's a good concept that is also ripe for abuse with anyone who has some amount of "fuck your rules" money. Same reason why fines that don't scale with income/earnings in some form often do nothing to deter "the rich". I certainly like carrots more than sticks, but we need a couple of sticks as well.
    - morepedantic 2y ago
      Scaling fines with income only works to hard stop behavior, at which point just make it illegal. Most fines are proportional to damages. Criminalizing fossil fuels is insane. The fines should cover the externalities.
      - SecretDreams 2y ago
        > Scaling fines with income only works to hard stop behavior, No, it makes it so that the outcome is more equally felt across all income levels. What does someone affluent care if they have to pay a $100 speeding ticket or a $20 parking ticket? That's just the cost of business for them.
        morepedantic 2y ago
        >No, it makes it so that the outcome is more equally felt across all income levels. Because you want to... hard stop behavior. Parking violations cause harm, so the fine should be a function of damage to society, not some weird fetish to make people feel pain. If behavior is so unacceptable that you want to prevent it altogether, criminalize it.
- osigurdson 2y ago
  If interested in a case study, have a look at Canada's experiment with it.
UncleOxidant 2y ago
This is largely why all the vehicles around us have become supersized. It's completely idiotic.
- ethagnawl 2y ago
  It's also who sedans and compact cars have largely ceased to exist. The vast majority of new vehicles are crossovers or _light trucks_, which aren't held to the same emission/efficiency standards.
  - Aurornis 2y ago
    > It's also who sedans and compact cars have largely ceased to exist. Consumer demand is still an important factor. Sedans and compact cars are still out there, sitting on dealer lots with reasonable prices.
    - Workaccount2 2y ago
      Yeah but the only way to protect myself if hit by a freight train is to also drive a freight train.
    - smallerfish 2y ago
      Consumer demand is driven by marketing.
- Yhippa 2y ago
  Anybody know how it got to this point? It can't be because of regulatory capture, right? I don't think small cars are getting made for the US because of SUV mania and something like a 67 MPG requirement for the Honda Fit based on it's build.
  - Aurornis 2y ago
    > I don't think small cars are getting made for the US because of SUV mania and something like a 67 MPG requirement for the Honda Fit based on it's build. The famous 67MPG requirement was for a hypothetical 2026 model year car But Honda discontinued the Fit in the United States in 2020, long before the hypothetical 2026 target. The reason is consumer demand. People weren't buying them. There are thousands of lightly used Honda Fits on the used market for reasonable prices, but they're not moving. Yes, the regulations are flawed, but that doesn't change the lack of consumer demand.
_fat_santa 2y ago
My favorite thing to come out of CAFE regulations was the Aston Martin Cygnet. It was just a re-badged Toyota iQ whose sole purpose was to raise the average fuel economy within their fleet. Later they made a one off version for Goodwood that has a V8 stuffed under the hood.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > My favorite thing to come out of CAFE regulations was the Aston Martin Cygnet. It was just a re-badged Toyota iQ whose sole purpose was to raise the average fuel economy within their fleet. Maybe that's a good thing. It compelled Aston Martin to provide their customers with a fuel-efficient option.
  - masklinn 2y ago
    Nobody looking for a fuel efficient car would look at Aston, and nobody looking at Aston would go for a fuel efficient car. Which was borne by its sales: sold for nearly 3 times the price you'd have paid Toyota for an iQ, it sold all of 600 units in two years before being cancelled, Aston's second shortest production run. The shortest was the Virage which sold more than 1000 units in a year.
    - pm3003 2y ago
      At some point they offered a free Cygnet if you bought one of their other models.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Rebadging doesn't add any meaningful consumer choice.
mtillman 2y ago
Fine print: The truck in the link is only $20K after government subsidies/rebates. So if the government gives my tax dollars to buyers of this truck, then it will cost $20K.
- standardUser 2y ago
  As opposed to other prices that are not the product of a political economy?
- aaroninsf 2y ago
  Yes, and you will benefit, because the role of the state is to advance the collective and common good. That's why we have TeH gOvErNmEnT.
- throwaway29812 2y ago
  [dead]
- Brybry 2y ago
  Electric vehicle tax credits are non-refundable tax credits meaning you can't get a credit for more than you owe. [1][2] Which means no one is getting your tax dollars to buy vehicles (though there may be some infrastructure or manufacturing grants for companies). [1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12600 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12600 [2] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/tax-credits-for-individuals-what-they-mean-and-how-they-can-help-refunds https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/tax-credits-for-individuals-wha...
  - anannymoose 2y ago
    So, should I wish to purchase a vehicle this tax year, I tell my HR to adjust my income withholding such that I owe 7,500$ come tax time and then reap the rewards? Or is there more to the incentive structure?
    - palmtree3000 2y ago
      Withholding isn't relevant here. Non refundable means it can't cause the government to net pay you money: that is to say, it can't make your refund larger than your withholding.
api 2y ago
> since 2011, bigger cars are held to a lesser standard by CAFE[1]. ... and this is why American cars got so huge, if anyone was curious.
nullc 2y ago
I have a small(*) twenty year old i4 pickup and I regularly get cash offers for it while out and about. There is a lot of demand for the small inexpensive and relatively fuel efficient utility vehicles that the government currently prohibits manufacturing. (*Ironically, though small it has a considerably longer bed than many currently produced larger and less fuel efficient trucks... I'm mystified by trucks that can't even contain a bike without removing a wheel or hanging one over a gate. Looks like the bed on this EV is a bit short too, but a short bed on a small truck is more excusable than a short bed on a huge truck)
zx10rse 2y ago
Automotive industry is one of the biggest scams on planet earth. One of my favorite cases recently is how Suzuki Jimny is banned in Europe and US because of emission standards allegedly, so the little Jimny is emitting 146g/km but somehow there is no problem to buy a G-Class that is emitting 358g/km oh and surprise surprise Mercedes are going to release a smaller more affordable G-Class [1]. [1] - https://www.motortrend.com/news/2026-mercedes-benz-baby-g-wagen-class-ewk https://www.motortrend.com/news/2026-mercedes-benz-baby-g-wa...
- mft_ 2y ago
  Manufacturers must hit a level of CO2 emissions on average across their whole fleet. As such, Suzuki is choosing to discontinue the Jimny because of the tougher fleet average targets starting in 2025. Overall you’re right that it’s a bit of a fix; Mercedes ‘pools’ its emissions with other manufacturers/brands. It currently pools with Smart, but may also pool with Volvo/Polestar? [0] It’s such an obvious approach to ‘game’ the targets, it’s a wonder the EU didn’t see it coming when they introduced the scheme. [0] https://www.schmidtmatthias.de/post/mercedes-benz-intends-to https://www.schmidtmatthias.de/post/mercedes-benz-intends-to...
  - jimbob45 2y ago
    Is that weighted for individual car popularity? Because couldn’t you put three push cars in your lineup that you don’t realistically expect to sell and be fine?
    - rv3392 2y ago
      AFAIK the average emissions are based on cars that were actually sold. So yeah, it's weighted for popularity in a way.
  - kranke155 2y ago
    They likely saw it coming… and deliberately did it this way. All local industry distorts their relevant politics. There’s lobbyists in the EU too. The EU economy has a lot of car manufacturing, so cars are probably a big deal in Brussels.
darth_avocado 2y ago
And what you’re describing is exactly the reason Kei trucks aren’t a thing despite most farmers actually liking them for their utility. You can’t import them unless they are old because we want to protect the automotive industry. But we can’t build them new either because they don’t meet the safety standards (FMVSS) and are penalized more for being fuel efficient because the standards are stricter for smaller vehicles.
- ganoushoreilly 2y ago
  To be fair, kei trucks are horrible in crashes too. That’s a big part of states starting to ban them.
  - proggy 2y ago
    They’re horrible in crashes in the North American region. That’s because the average vehicle size in North America is much, much bigger than the vehicles in the Kei trucks’ region of origin. And streets in North America are, on average, much, much wider and permit higher speed traffic than those in Japan. The cars themselves aren’t inherently unsafe; if you keep them mostly on private property and only take them out on low-speed public roads with light duty vehicles, they’re still operating in an appropriate context. Also pretty appropriate in historic city centers where the roads aren’t too fast and the trucks and full size SUVs aren’t too numerous. But yeah, take one out on the interstate boxed between two semi trucks, an F-350, and a Suburban and you’re going to be in real danger.
  - darth_avocado 2y ago
    Motorbikes are much worse in crashes than kei trucks, we are more than happy to make, sell and operate them. I don’t actually buy the “unsafe” reasoning. It’s also perfectly street legal to buy and drive cars and trucks from the 60s with abysmal safety ratings.
nimish 2y ago
Repealing these Obama era rules would go a long way to restoring automotive affordability. Can't undo cash for clunkers though
dlcarrier 2y ago
It's worth noting that CAFE standards have been in effect since the 70's, and disincentivized small vehicles since long before the 2011 updates.

MostlyStable 2y ago

Example #5621 that a simple carbon tax would be miles better than the complex morass of regulations we currently have.

aidenn0 2y ago
That's overly reductive. 1. Poorer people tend to drive older vehicles, so if you solely encourage higher fuel economies by taxing carbon emissions, then the tax is (at least short-term) regressive. 2. You can work around #1 by applying incentives for manufacturers to make more efficient cars should lead any carbon tax 3. If you just reward companies based on fleet-average fuel economy without regard to vehicle size, then it would be rather bad for US car companies (who employ unionized workers) that historically make larger cars than Asian and European companies. 4. So the first thing done was to have a separate standard for passenger vehicles and light-trucks, but this resulted in minivans and SUVs being made in such a way as to get the light-truck rating 5. We then ended up with the size-based calculation we have today, but the formula is (IMO) overly punitive on small vehicles. Given that the formula was forward looking, it was almost certain to be wrong in one direction or the other, but it hasn't been updated.
- bflesch 2y ago
  Meanwhile jet fuel for private jets is (and remains) not taxed at all, even in the EU.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    Which is bonkers. If ever there was a thing that should be taxed it's jet fuel for private jets. 300% tax on private jet fuel would be reasonable. The emissions just to shuttle rich people from one side of the country to the next (For some, multiple times per day) is insane. You should need to be a billionaire just to afford flying private jets and it should still eat a significant portion of your income if that's what you choose to do. And for what? Like, we live in the modern era, why does anyone need to travel from NY to Florida to Texas to California in a day?
    - Gibbon1 2y ago
      I have a suspicion the reason why super wealthy people like say Musk but he isn't the only one hate subways and high speed rail is because they fly everywhere. You might like if you could get on the subway in Glen Park and be at lands end in half an hour. You might like getting on a high speed rail and being in LA in 4 hours. These guy will never ride a subway or take a train anywhere.
      - gonzoflip 2y ago
        I'm no Musk fanboy, but it is funny you mention him not liking subways or high speed rail because didn't he try to build a subterranean high speed rail?
        AlexandrB 2y ago
        The hyperloop was a shit idea from day one and thus far no one has been able to make it work. It's also entirely possible that Elon Musk floated this as a distraction to stop the development of "regular" high speed rain in California[1]. The Las Vegas "loop"[2], on the other hand, is basically a parody of a subway - with a fraction of the capacity. > In July 2021, the peak passenger flow was recorded at 1,355 passengers per hour. As a comparison Toronto's subway can handle 28,000 passengers per hour[3] per direction or more. [1] https://www.jalopnik.com/did-musk-propose-hyperloop-to-stop-california-high-spee-1849402460/ https://www.jalopnik.com/did-musk-propose-hyperloop-to-stop-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_Convention_Center_Loop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_Convention_Center_Lo... [3] https://dailyhive.com/toronto/ttc-toronto-subway-station-ridership-2018 https://dailyhive.com/toronto/ttc-toronto-subway-station-rid...
- breakyerself 2y ago
  Carbon taxes become progressive with the simple step of returning the revenue to taxpayers as a dividend payment using the existing social security payment infrastructure. Richer people have such outsized carbon footprints that most people would get back more in dividends than they lost in higher costs.
- MostlyStable 2y ago
  All carbon tax is inherently regressive but that's also trivially fixable. Make it revenue neutral and give every citizen a flat portion of the total collected revenue. Bam, it is now progressive, since on average richer people will spend more on fuel (and therefore the tax) even though it is likely a much smaller percentage of their spending. Every single one of your ideas has problems that are solved by a carbon tax. Taxes are simple, they accomplish what you want, and they don't have loopholes. A carbon tax will _never_ have the unintended consequence of making emissions worse. Many of our current regulations, including the one I was responding to do exactly that because they actually cause people to buy larger trucks than they otherwise would with worse fuel efficiency. A carbon tax might not on it's own be enough to solve the problem (especially if you set it to low), but no matter what level you set it, it will help. Thanks to unintended consequences, many of our current regulations are actively counter productive, while _also_ having negative economic and other costs.
  - abakker 2y ago
    All costs are regressive to people with less ability to bear them. By making them not regressive we don't change behavior! It doesn't matter if they're regressive if the objective is to get people to not drive or to burn less gas. Shifting the cost to the rich doesn't change behavior and it doesn't reduce actual carbon. There's a lot more low-income emitters than high income ones.
    - MetaWhirledPeas 2y ago
      > Shifting the cost to the rich doesn't change behavior and it doesn't reduce actual carbon. Shifting cost to the emitters is a better way to put it. If a factory can make 10m in upgrades over time to reduce their carbon tax burden by 15m over time, they are definitely going to do it. So I disagree: I say it does change behavior and it does reduce actual carbon. > There's a lot more low-income emitters than high income ones Whether that's true or not it does not mean a carbon tax would not 'reduce actual carbon'.
      - otterley 2y ago
- danans 2y ago
  > 1. Poorer people tend to drive older vehicles, so if you solely encourage higher fuel economies by taxing carbon emissions, then the tax is (at least short-term) regressive. You give it back to poor as a income-phased out refundable tax credit. Crucially, base it not on how much they drive or consume, but on their income. Name it something like the "Worker's Energy Credit". In the worst case, it cancels out the carbon tax spent by them commensurate with their lower income. In the best case poor people who don't drive much actually come out ahead, and it's just a very progressive sales tax. The rich might hate it, and call it "redistribution", which is fine because that's exactly what it is, and what taxes have always been, but this one would redistribute downwards instead of upwards, and incentivize lower carbon emissions by those who can afford it.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    > The rich might hate it, and call it "redistribution", which is fine because that's exactly what it is, and what taxes have always been, but this one would redistribute downwards instead of upwards, and incentivize lower carbon emissions by those who can afford it. Larry Page would be pumped. His annual salary is $1. I feel pretty strongly that adding exceptions and loopholes to taxes only benefit wealthy people, which is the opposite of the intent. I would be interested in reading a study where all the tax laws in the country were burned down and rebuilt, with no loopholes or exceptions. Also, eliminate borrowing against a stock portfolio. That is downright evil.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > I feel pretty strongly that adding exceptions and loopholes to taxes only benefit wealthy people, which is the opposite of the intent. It depends what the exception is. If the exceptions are "we treat a form of income received disproportionately by the rich a 'not income' and tax it at a lower rate, and on top of that we add an extra tax on top of income tax on labor income, and cap the larger part of that extra tax, too, to avoid burdening high earners", that helps the rich, sure. But there are plenty of exceptions possible that don't do that.
    - danans 2y ago
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  Are you saying used car sales would have a carbon tax? I've never heard anyone suggest anything like that. It's just a tax on new items.
- xvokcarts 2y ago
  Looks like as long as only positive change is allowed to touch the poor, there will be little change.
  - austhrow743 2y ago
    Going to let us burn because not doing so would be regressive.
- AdrianB1 2y ago
  If you want to reduce carbon emissions, if the tax is regressive or not does not matter as long as you tax emissions. If you want to mix too many things, you will not get a good solution for any.
- DrNosferatu 2y ago
  This.
- nullc 2y ago
  > 1. Poorer people tend to drive older vehicles, so if you solely encourage higher fuel economies by taxing carbon emissions, then the tax is (at least short-term) regressive. The idea that policy makers care about this in any meaningful sense is absurd given the EV mandates, as EV's radically change the lifecycle costs of cars in a way that is absolutely destructive to people who aren't wealthy. EV's lower the 'fueling' cost but shift part of it into large cashflow crushing battery replacement costs. Automobiles have been a significant engine in elevating less wealthy americans because you can buy a old junky car for very little and keep it limping along with use-proportional fuel costs and minor maintenance. Even if it's an inefficient car, you use it to go to work, so you're making money to pay for the fuel. Less work, less work fuel required. EV's significantly break the model and will push many more less wealthy people onto predatory financing which they'll never escape. Yet policy makers refuse to even discuss the life-cycle cashflow difference of EVs, and continue to more forward with policies to eventually mandate their use. > it was almost certain to be wrong in one direction or the other, but it hasn't been updated. It's been broken all along. We've had decades to fix it.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  Yeah that’s the truth. The mass of poor people are the predominant polluters. They produce little of value and pollute a lot. So the question then is whether you care about the environment or about the poor and most people would rather the latter.
- morepedantic 2y ago
  TIL poor people can't pollute, so their market segment shouldn't be incentivized to cut pollution. TIL that US car companies won't make smaller cars in the face of different regulations, even though they made larger cars in response to current regulations. The only way to avoid perversions is to tax the problem directly. The market will adjust to all proxies in unintended and harmful ways.
  - parineum 2y ago
    A disincentive on a thing you don't want makes people choose another thing that you may or may not want. The only way to avoid perversions is to incentivize the things you want. Taxing cigarettes led to vaping. Maybe less bad but still a nuisance.
    - morepedantic 2y ago
      Are you agreeing with me, or did you drop a negative twice?
      - parineum 2y ago
        You're statement is not true. Disincentives don't make people make good choices, they make them make different choices. Incentives guide people to make a specific choice.
        morepedantic 2y ago
        It is the role of a central planner to pick a particular outcome, and it's also the worst strategy of the modern era. Everything which is not forbidden is allowed. Your belief that you should make the positive choice on behalf of others is the most dangerous philosophy of the 20th century.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
timewizard 2y ago
Fuel is already taxed. What would a "carbon tax" add here?
rcpt 2y ago
The purpose of the CAFE regulations is very explicitly to favor American automakers who make big trucks.
- tlb 2y ago
  It wasn't the intended purpose. It turned out that way because the Detroit lobbyists were smarter and more motivated than the government policy people, and they bamboozled them.
  - smallmancontrov 2y ago
    The congress critters knew what they were doing and didn't do it for free.
- aidenn0 2y ago
  That was one of several purposes.
bgnn 2y ago
why can't we just tax the gas at the pump? this is, at least, what I'm used to in Europe.
- brianwawok 2y ago
  We do. But it’s a super regressive tax. Lots of very poor people depend on a bad MPG car to get to work and live.
  - bgnn 2y ago
    that's a different problem. US cities used to have good publhc transport, but the urvanization policies since 50s is car-centric. plus, because of the American cars having huge engines they have bad MPG. The current situation US is in is nothing to do with the tax regime.
  - morepedantic 2y ago
    If you subsidize polluting life-styles, you'll get pollution. You think the rich suffer from pollution and car dependency? It's not at all clear that taxing gas will lead to worse outcomes for the poor. It's entirely clear that subsidizing pollution from the poor will lead to worse outcomes for the planet.
    - kaishiro 2y ago
      What isn’t clear about the fact that increasing commuting costs for those living paycheck to paycheck leads to a worse outcome?
      - morepedantic 2y ago
        Because you're only considering first-order effects. Behaviors, markets, and systems will evolve around the new rules. Public transit could improve. People could trade in SUVs for hybrid sedans. People could carpool. People could bike. People could walk. Corner stores could re-open. People could demand zoning changes, instead of fighting every nearby development.
ponector 2y ago
I think the best way is to tax fuel itself. This way worse mpg result in more tax. Tax diesel more than gasoline, LNG less.
- michpoch 2y ago
  This is already done, in Europe most of the fuel costs are taxes.
- ChadNauseam 2y ago
  That makes sense, but there would be no incentive to switch to an engine that emits less carbon for the same fuel consumption (if such a thing exists)
  - AdrianB1 2y ago
    You don't create carbon out of thin air, it's from the fuel, so burning the same quantity of fuel will result in the same quantity of carbon, no matter how the engine works. Therefore a tax on fuel is a tax on carbon.
    - idiotsecant 2y ago
      Incomplete combustion is a big component of emissions, and it's exactly what you're saying doesn't exist
      - cma 2y ago
        Those eventually degrade to CO2 so the increased warming from them compared to co2 by mass is temporary, like with methane.
      - CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
        Yes but since incomplete combustion is inverse correlated with fuel efficiency (unburned fuel is wasted fuel), it's not really a trade off. What is a trade off is NO emissions vs fuel efficiency. Burning your fuel oxygen rich will burn of more fuel, but also makes more NO (due to higher temperatures if I remember correctly).
guywithahat 2y ago
I don’t think it would be possible to produce a carbon tax that’s simple
- patmcc 2y ago
  Tax the fuel. Gasoline now has a $X/gallon tax, as does propane, as does coal, whatever. What is the difficulty with that?
  - kasey_junk 2y ago
    It’s extremely regressive. You’d need to also give a rebate based on income level.
    - Spooky23 2y ago
      That’s the excuse that is used for agriculture. They sell a vision of a Fisher Price toy farm, but make policy for giant Midwest farms. The proverbial blue collar truck owner is already screwed. Random surburban dude should be paying through the nose for his F-250. Create demand for fuel efficiency, and you’ll have cars like my dad’s 1993 Escort Wagon, that got 45mpg.
    - patmcc 2y ago
      Give everybody $1000 (or whatever) to offset that. Ends up being neutral for some folks, a net benefit to the poor, and a net cost to the rich. This is already how lots of jurisdictions handle regressive taxes.
    - morepedantic 2y ago
      Tax the poor for carbon emission. They'll adjust. People will walk, bike, take the bus, car pool, and buy used hybrids instead of mustangs. PS, regressive use taxes are 100% moral, fine, upstanding, and ethical.
      - kasey_junk 2y ago
        > regressive use taxes are 100% moral, fine, upstanding, and ethical Turns out you are wrong.
conductr 2y ago
This has been a known problem and could be changed if the political will to make common sense policy changes and corrections when needed was anywhere near existing. Unfortunately, we live in a [political] dystopia
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> a simple carbon tax would be miles better than the complex morass of regulations we currently have Doesn't this just punt the morass into the magic variable of one's carbon footprint? How about this: fleet efficiency standards are stupid, anachronistic and counterproductive. Scrap them. Then, separarately, create a consumer-side rebate based on a vehicle's mileage. (Because a gas tax breaks American brains.)
- SecretDreams 2y ago
  > How about this: fleet efficiency standards are stupid, anachronistic and counterproductive. Scrap them. Then, separarately, create a consumer-side rebate based on a vehicle's mileage. (Because a gas tax breaks American brains.) It's a good concept that is also ripe for abuse with anyone who has some amount of "fuck your rules" money. Same reason why fines that don't scale with income/earnings in some form often do nothing to deter "the rich". I certainly like carrots more than sticks, but we need a couple of sticks as well.
  - morepedantic 2y ago
    Scaling fines with income only works to hard stop behavior, at which point just make it illegal. Most fines are proportional to damages. Criminalizing fossil fuels is insane. The fines should cover the externalities.
    - SecretDreams 2y ago
      > Scaling fines with income only works to hard stop behavior, No, it makes it so that the outcome is more equally felt across all income levels. What does someone affluent care if they have to pay a $100 speeding ticket or a $20 parking ticket? That's just the cost of business for them.
      - morepedantic 2y ago
        >No, it makes it so that the outcome is more equally felt across all income levels. Because you want to... hard stop behavior. Parking violations cause harm, so the fine should be a function of damage to society, not some weird fetish to make people feel pain. If behavior is so unacceptable that you want to prevent it altogether, criminalize it.
osigurdson 2y ago
If interested in a case study, have a look at Canada's experiment with it.

UncleOxidant 2y ago

This is largely why all the vehicles around us have become supersized. It's completely idiotic.

ethagnawl 2y ago
It's also who sedans and compact cars have largely ceased to exist. The vast majority of new vehicles are crossovers or _light trucks_, which aren't held to the same emission/efficiency standards.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  > It's also who sedans and compact cars have largely ceased to exist. Consumer demand is still an important factor. Sedans and compact cars are still out there, sitting on dealer lots with reasonable prices.
  - Workaccount2 2y ago
    Yeah but the only way to protect myself if hit by a freight train is to also drive a freight train.
  - smallerfish 2y ago
    Consumer demand is driven by marketing.
Yhippa 2y ago
Anybody know how it got to this point? It can't be because of regulatory capture, right? I don't think small cars are getting made for the US because of SUV mania and something like a 67 MPG requirement for the Honda Fit based on it's build.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  > I don't think small cars are getting made for the US because of SUV mania and something like a 67 MPG requirement for the Honda Fit based on it's build. The famous 67MPG requirement was for a hypothetical 2026 model year car But Honda discontinued the Fit in the United States in 2020, long before the hypothetical 2026 target. The reason is consumer demand. People weren't buying them. There are thousands of lightly used Honda Fits on the used market for reasonable prices, but they're not moving. Yes, the regulations are flawed, but that doesn't change the lack of consumer demand.

_fat_santa 2y ago

My favorite thing to come out of CAFE regulations was the Aston Martin Cygnet. It was just a re-badged Toyota iQ whose sole purpose was to raise the average fuel economy within their fleet. Later they made a one off version for Goodwood that has a V8 stuffed under the hood.

mmooss 2y ago
> My favorite thing to come out of CAFE regulations was the Aston Martin Cygnet. It was just a re-badged Toyota iQ whose sole purpose was to raise the average fuel economy within their fleet. Maybe that's a good thing. It compelled Aston Martin to provide their customers with a fuel-efficient option.
- masklinn 2y ago
  Nobody looking for a fuel efficient car would look at Aston, and nobody looking at Aston would go for a fuel efficient car. Which was borne by its sales: sold for nearly 3 times the price you'd have paid Toyota for an iQ, it sold all of 600 units in two years before being cancelled, Aston's second shortest production run. The shortest was the Virage which sold more than 1000 units in a year.
  - pm3003 2y ago
    At some point they offered a free Cygnet if you bought one of their other models.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Rebadging doesn't add any meaningful consumer choice.

mtillman 2y ago

Fine print: The truck in the link is only $20K after government subsidies/rebates. So if the government gives my tax dollars to buyers of this truck, then it will cost $20K.

standardUser 2y ago
As opposed to other prices that are not the product of a political economy?
aaroninsf 2y ago
Yes, and you will benefit, because the role of the state is to advance the collective and common good. That's why we have TeH gOvErNmEnT.
throwaway29812 2y ago
[dead]
Brybry 2y ago
Electric vehicle tax credits are non-refundable tax credits meaning you can't get a credit for more than you owe. [1][2] Which means no one is getting your tax dollars to buy vehicles (though there may be some infrastructure or manufacturing grants for companies). [1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12600 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12600 [2] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/tax-credits-for-individuals-what-they-mean-and-how-they-can-help-refunds https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/tax-credits-for-individuals-wha...
- anannymoose 2y ago
  So, should I wish to purchase a vehicle this tax year, I tell my HR to adjust my income withholding such that I owe 7,500$ come tax time and then reap the rewards? Or is there more to the incentive structure?
  - palmtree3000 2y ago
    Withholding isn't relevant here. Non refundable means it can't cause the government to net pay you money: that is to say, it can't make your refund larger than your withholding.

api 2y ago

> since 2011, bigger cars are held to a lesser standard by CAFE[1]. ... and this is why American cars got so huge, if anyone was curious.

nullc 2y ago

I have a small(*) twenty year old i4 pickup and I regularly get cash offers for it while out and about. There is a lot of demand for the small inexpensive and relatively fuel efficient utility vehicles that the government currently prohibits manufacturing. (*Ironically, though small it has a considerably longer bed than many currently produced larger and less fuel efficient trucks... I'm mystified by trucks that can't even contain a bike without removing a wheel or hanging one over a gate. Looks like the bed on this EV is a bit short too, but a short bed on a small truck is more excusable than a short bed on a huge truck)

zx10rse 2y ago

Automotive industry is one of the biggest scams on planet earth. One of my favorite cases recently is how Suzuki Jimny is banned in Europe and US because of emission standards allegedly, so the little Jimny is emitting 146g/km but somehow there is no problem to buy a G-Class that is emitting 358g/km oh and surprise surprise Mercedes are going to release a smaller more affordable G-Class [1]. [1] - https://www.motortrend.com/news/2026-mercedes-benz-baby-g-wagen-class-ewk https://www.motortrend.com/news/2026-mercedes-benz-baby-g-wa...

mft_ 2y ago
Manufacturers must hit a level of CO2 emissions on average across their whole fleet. As such, Suzuki is choosing to discontinue the Jimny because of the tougher fleet average targets starting in 2025. Overall you’re right that it’s a bit of a fix; Mercedes ‘pools’ its emissions with other manufacturers/brands. It currently pools with Smart, but may also pool with Volvo/Polestar? [0] It’s such an obvious approach to ‘game’ the targets, it’s a wonder the EU didn’t see it coming when they introduced the scheme. [0] https://www.schmidtmatthias.de/post/mercedes-benz-intends-to https://www.schmidtmatthias.de/post/mercedes-benz-intends-to...
- jimbob45 2y ago
  Is that weighted for individual car popularity? Because couldn’t you put three push cars in your lineup that you don’t realistically expect to sell and be fine?
  - rv3392 2y ago
    AFAIK the average emissions are based on cars that were actually sold. So yeah, it's weighted for popularity in a way.
- kranke155 2y ago
  They likely saw it coming… and deliberately did it this way. All local industry distorts their relevant politics. There’s lobbyists in the EU too. The EU economy has a lot of car manufacturing, so cars are probably a big deal in Brussels.

darth_avocado 2y ago

And what you’re describing is exactly the reason Kei trucks aren’t a thing despite most farmers actually liking them for their utility. You can’t import them unless they are old because we want to protect the automotive industry. But we can’t build them new either because they don’t meet the safety standards (FMVSS) and are penalized more for being fuel efficient because the standards are stricter for smaller vehicles.

ganoushoreilly 2y ago
To be fair, kei trucks are horrible in crashes too. That’s a big part of states starting to ban them.
- proggy 2y ago
  They’re horrible in crashes in the North American region. That’s because the average vehicle size in North America is much, much bigger than the vehicles in the Kei trucks’ region of origin. And streets in North America are, on average, much, much wider and permit higher speed traffic than those in Japan. The cars themselves aren’t inherently unsafe; if you keep them mostly on private property and only take them out on low-speed public roads with light duty vehicles, they’re still operating in an appropriate context. Also pretty appropriate in historic city centers where the roads aren’t too fast and the trucks and full size SUVs aren’t too numerous. But yeah, take one out on the interstate boxed between two semi trucks, an F-350, and a Suburban and you’re going to be in real danger.
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  Motorbikes are much worse in crashes than kei trucks, we are more than happy to make, sell and operate them. I don’t actually buy the “unsafe” reasoning. It’s also perfectly street legal to buy and drive cars and trucks from the 60s with abysmal safety ratings.

nimish 2y ago

Repealing these Obama era rules would go a long way to restoring automotive affordability. Can't undo cash for clunkers though

dlcarrier 2y ago

It's worth noting that CAFE standards have been in effect since the 70's, and disincentivized small vehicles since long before the 2011 updates.