3 ms·

I suppose you would argue that we should all just pay all externalities created by the free market even if they would simply bankrupt or kill us. http://en.wik

I suppose you would argue that we should all just pay all externalities created by the free market even if they would simply bankrupt or kill us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality For example, if HSBC knowingly funded murderous, criminal gangs around the world, they should be allowed to finance killing because it helps them pursue profit? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageo... Car companies had a clear choice. They could give up one profitable market or they could take appropriate actions contributing to the cause of reducing smog-related deaths in California. There is a very huge public cost for eliminating these regulations, as was PROVEN to everyone in the 1990s when most green cars were killed on the spot when earlier regulation ended.

JackFr 13y ago
Two points. (1)The externalities are not caused by either the car makers or the oil producers. They are caused by drivers. Driving creates the emissions, and under a fair system drivers should bear the costs. (2) Mandating fuel efficient cars has the same effect on consumption as reducing the cost of gasoline.
- mncolinlee 13y ago
  #1 is only partly true. California proved most pollution can be stopped by the car's factory-provided emission controls before the driver ever enters the vehicle. The car maker has a great macro effect in reducing pollution. This is hugely important to Los Angeles, which is located in a bowl and has suffered from a considerable number of smog-related deaths and health costs. #2 is incorrect. They did not mandate fuel efficient cars to reduce consumption. They mandated a certain percentage of zero and near zero emission cars. As an electric vehicle owner, I can reassure you that this does not automatically result in more miles traveled.

JackFr 13y ago

Two points. (1)The externalities are not caused by either the car makers or the oil producers. They are caused by drivers. Driving creates the emissions, and under a fair system drivers should bear the costs. (2) Mandating fuel efficient cars has the same effect on consumption as reducing the cost of gasoline.

mncolinlee 13y ago
#1 is only partly true. California proved most pollution can be stopped by the car's factory-provided emission controls before the driver ever enters the vehicle. The car maker has a great macro effect in reducing pollution. This is hugely important to Los Angeles, which is located in a bowl and has suffered from a considerable number of smog-related deaths and health costs. #2 is incorrect. They did not mandate fuel efficient cars to reduce consumption. They mandated a certain percentage of zero and near zero emission cars. As an electric vehicle owner, I can reassure you that this does not automatically result in more miles traveled.