3 ms·

Even pricing CO2 output from burning fossil gas, plus a % for upstream leaks, and the same for car combustion will go a long way. Mind you people won't like th

Even pricing CO2 output from burning fossil gas, plus a % for upstream leaks, and the same for car combustion will go a long way. Mind you people won't like that since we're so used to using the atmosphere as a free sewer. The idea of having to pay for our pollution isn't palatable since the gasses are mostly invisible. Though it's sad that we're talking about market solutions rather than outright bans for the majority of applications like we did for leaded gas.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
Outright bans are a non-starter because it requires an infrastructure transition. You couldn't possibly replace every car with an electric one overnight, we can't make them that fast. But if you price carbon then it would cause every new car to be electric, or at least a plug-in hybrid that runs in electric mode 95% of the time. And the people who drive a lot of miles would switch to electric first, which would make a big difference right away. Meanwhile the people with a 10 year old car they drive 5000 miles a year will keep it until it's a 20 year old car, at which point they'll buy another 10 year old car, but by then that one will run on electricity. Then you could theoretically ban it, but by then do you even need to?
- _aavaa_ 1y ago
  Nobody is talking about replacing all cars overnight. You don't have to ban existing cars, they will phase themselves out. Give every X years and ban the sales of any non-hybrids for all but a few niche applications. Then in X+Y years ban all combustion engines other than niche applications. But ultimately, we need to be serious about this, and half the population and the governments of most western countries are not serious. Many people still believe that climate change is a hoax, and ridiculous ideas like hydrogen cars and ammonia burning ships are still getting funding.
delusional 1y ago
I should probably clarify that I'm not against CO2 emissions taxes. What I am saying is that we shouldn't get bogged down with the discussion of "fairness" and "paying for a shared resource" rhetoric. Down that road lies an infinite discussion. What we should do instead is start at the other end. Envision a world that would be sustainable, that we would want to live in, and decide which incentives have to exists for us to get there, fairness be damned.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

Outright bans are a non-starter because it requires an infrastructure transition. You couldn't possibly replace every car with an electric one overnight, we can't make them that fast. But if you price carbon then it would cause every new car to be electric, or at least a plug-in hybrid that runs in electric mode 95% of the time. And the people who drive a lot of miles would switch to electric first, which would make a big difference right away. Meanwhile the people with a 10 year old car they drive 5000 miles a year will keep it until it's a 20 year old car, at which point they'll buy another 10 year old car, but by then that one will run on electricity. Then you could theoretically ban it, but by then do you even need to?

_aavaa_ 1y ago
Nobody is talking about replacing all cars overnight. You don't have to ban existing cars, they will phase themselves out. Give every X years and ban the sales of any non-hybrids for all but a few niche applications. Then in X+Y years ban all combustion engines other than niche applications. But ultimately, we need to be serious about this, and half the population and the governments of most western countries are not serious. Many people still believe that climate change is a hoax, and ridiculous ideas like hydrogen cars and ammonia burning ships are still getting funding.

delusional 1y ago

I should probably clarify that I'm not against CO2 emissions taxes. What I am saying is that we shouldn't get bogged down with the discussion of "fairness" and "paying for a shared resource" rhetoric. Down that road lies an infinite discussion. What we should do instead is start at the other end. Envision a world that would be sustainable, that we would want to live in, and decide which incentives have to exists for us to get there, fairness be damned.