4 ms·
What's absurd about it? If pollution has bad and expensive effects (asthma, flooding, crop loss), those creating it should pay to help deal with it. It's like p
by nathan_long 13y ago
What's absurd about it? If pollution has bad and expensive effects (asthma, flooding, crop loss), those creating it should pay to help deal with it. It's like paying to have your own trash picked up instead of dumping it in your neighbor's yard.
If you doubt that pollution is bad, that's another story, but you're in the minority and outvoted.
- twoodfin 13y agoAnd you really think the best way to do that is to subsidize toys for rich folks?
- epicureanideal 13y agoAs far as I know, the subsidy is the same regardless of the price of the vehicle, so it doesn't apply only to "toys for rich folks". Also, I wouldn't say that a Tesla is a toy for rich folks. Many reasonably successful software engineers could afford one if they didn't want to spend their disposable income on other forms of entertainment.
- josefresco 13y ago"Entertainment for the upper middle class" there fixed it for you.
- AlisdairO 13y agoAs part of a long term plan to commoditise the technology and make it cheap, as you no doubt well know.
- roguas 13y agoOf course they should pay. Money should go to people who suffer from pollution. Its not like paying to have your own trash picked up. When you pay to have trash picked up you can choose a company, you can do it yourself, you can produce no trash etc.etc. Why should one pay companies to make cars they will never buy? One that has never added his 5cents to the pollution is beyond reason. But then again democracy is just another form of tyranny.