5 ms·

This is only true if you do not factor in the longer-term costs of carbon emissions. Those emissions will eventually need to be dealt with, and the costs will b

by revscat 13y ago

This is only true if you do not factor in the longer-term costs of carbon emissions. Those emissions will eventually need to be dealt with, and the costs will be substantial. If those costs are addressed today via tax subsidies for zero-emissions vehicles then the future costs will be lower. It is an "ounce of prevention" thing.

sp332 13y ago
Do you think the future costs are $7,500 per car though? Seems like we're still losing money on that. The actual argument, I think, is that this is just funding R&D for Tesla to make a better car in the future. That might actually be a good long-term investment.
- dm2 13y ago
  Nope, but it does influence adoption rates, which was the goal of the subsidy. If .01% of cars are electric and the chargers are not conveniently placed, then everyone will continue purchasing a ICE vehicle. If 5% of cars are electric, then people will see the benefits and that the cars are practical, then people will be significantly more likely to consider an electric vehicle for their next purchase. 75 million per 10,000 electric vehicles? It's costly but it's necessary, and in my humble opinion, it will be well worth it. The sooner we eliminate oil tankers and oil rigs, the better.
- revelation 13y ago
  I don't know, what is the estimated monetary cost of destroying whole eco systems and the earth to boot? Whats the opportunity cost in fighting wars over oil instead of developing regenerative energy sources? What did it cost society to use leaded gas? Lead is one of the most neurotoxic substances on the planet, and an ever so slightly increased concentration in the blood can seriously hamper intellectual development. What price tag can we put on costing someone 10 IQ points? The answer to all these questions, of course, is that it's impossible to correctly account for these things in the market without causing unfathomable transaction costs. This is after all the definition of a negative externality. But I can tell you as much, $7500 is a freaking bargain.
  - sp332 13y ago
    If everyone who can afford to, buys an electric car next year, they will pay part of the $7,500 tax credit back in their regular taxes, making it less effective. Also, the people with lower incomes will have to make up the difference with their taxes (assuming the Fed doesn't just print more money, making us all poorer via inflation). It would make more sense to fund efficiency improvements for people who otherwise can't afford them, than to pay rich people to buy efficient cars.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - duncan_bayne 13y ago
    > But I can tell you as much, $7500 is a freaking bargain. Proof please. Show your working.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Average Miles Driven Per Year: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm 13,476 miles Let's assume on the high side of 30mpg for a typical ICE vehice, so 449.20 gallons of gasoline per year. Typical car lasts 10.8 years (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/story/2012-01-17/cars-trucks-age-polk/52613102/1 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/story/2012-01-17/...). That's 4851.36 gallons over the lifetime of the vehicle. A gallon of gas converts to 19lbs of CO2 when burned. That's 92175.84 lbs of CO2 over the lifetime of the vehicle, or ~46 tons of CO2. If you're basing the economic benefit solely off of the amount of CO2 not being pumped into the atmosphere on a per car basis, it probably doesn't make sense. Don't forget the technologic (energy storage R&D) and energy security benefits though. Disclaimer: TSLA stock owner.
altoz 13y ago
"...the costs will be substantial..." This is an article of faith for the green crowd. I and many others are skeptical of such a claim, especially when temperatures have dropped despite higher emissions the past 10 years.
- jshen 13y ago
  "temperatures have dropped despite higher emissions the past 10 years." Please link to a source for this claim. Update: I'm not seeing this drop you are talking about. http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/climatechange/2013/590x375_02012255_screen-shot-2013-02-01-at-5.58.35-pm.png http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/c...
  - jckt 13y ago
    This is probably relevant http://www.climatecentral.org/news/why-the-globe-hasnt-warmed-much-for-the-past-decade-15788 http://www.climatecentral.org/news/why-the-globe-hasnt-warme... "The answer, according to a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters, is that a lot of it is being stored in the deep ocean, more than a half-mile down[...] [b]ut sooner or later it will inevitably emerge, which means that the current slowdown in warming may well be balanced by a period of rapid warming in a few years — nobody knows how many — from now." I think he meant that the global rate of increase in temperature has dropped, ie temperature has hardly changed in the last 10 years.
    - marshray 13y ago
      > Ordinarily, heat trapped by greenhouse gases would warm the ocean’s surface water, but since warm water floats on top of colder water, the heat would have a hard time percolating to the depths. “You need something to push it down,” Trenberth said. That something could easily be strong prevailing winds, which can literally stir things up — or in this case, down. This article is claiming that "the Globe Hasn’t Warmed Much for the Past Decade" because the wind is blowing the heat energy down into the depths of the ocean?
sc68cal 13y ago
The long-term costs of carbon emissions will be a public cost. It follows a pattern that has become quite common recently in America, where the profits are kept by the company and shareholders, while the costs are borne by the public. So don't be surprised that the Cato institute discounts that fact, since their funding comes from industries that can only survive by perpetuating this system.

by revscat 13y ago

sp332 13y ago

Do you think the future costs are $7,500 per car though? Seems like we're still losing money on that. The actual argument, I think, is that this is just funding R&D for Tesla to make a better car in the future. That might actually be a good long-term investment.

dm2 13y ago
Nope, but it does influence adoption rates, which was the goal of the subsidy. If .01% of cars are electric and the chargers are not conveniently placed, then everyone will continue purchasing a ICE vehicle. If 5% of cars are electric, then people will see the benefits and that the cars are practical, then people will be significantly more likely to consider an electric vehicle for their next purchase. 75 million per 10,000 electric vehicles? It's costly but it's necessary, and in my humble opinion, it will be well worth it. The sooner we eliminate oil tankers and oil rigs, the better.
revelation 13y ago
I don't know, what is the estimated monetary cost of destroying whole eco systems and the earth to boot? Whats the opportunity cost in fighting wars over oil instead of developing regenerative energy sources? What did it cost society to use leaded gas? Lead is one of the most neurotoxic substances on the planet, and an ever so slightly increased concentration in the blood can seriously hamper intellectual development. What price tag can we put on costing someone 10 IQ points? The answer to all these questions, of course, is that it's impossible to correctly account for these things in the market without causing unfathomable transaction costs. This is after all the definition of a negative externality. But I can tell you as much, $7500 is a freaking bargain.
- sp332 13y ago
  If everyone who can afford to, buys an electric car next year, they will pay part of the $7,500 tax credit back in their regular taxes, making it less effective. Also, the people with lower incomes will have to make up the difference with their taxes (assuming the Fed doesn't just print more money, making us all poorer via inflation). It would make more sense to fund efficiency improvements for people who otherwise can't afford them, than to pay rich people to buy efficient cars.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  > But I can tell you as much, $7500 is a freaking bargain. Proof please. Show your working.
toomuchtodo 13y ago
Average Miles Driven Per Year: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm 13,476 miles Let's assume on the high side of 30mpg for a typical ICE vehice, so 449.20 gallons of gasoline per year. Typical car lasts 10.8 years (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/story/2012-01-17/cars-trucks-age-polk/52613102/1 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/story/2012-01-17/...). That's 4851.36 gallons over the lifetime of the vehicle. A gallon of gas converts to 19lbs of CO2 when burned. That's 92175.84 lbs of CO2 over the lifetime of the vehicle, or ~46 tons of CO2. If you're basing the economic benefit solely off of the amount of CO2 not being pumped into the atmosphere on a per car basis, it probably doesn't make sense. Don't forget the technologic (energy storage R&D) and energy security benefits though. Disclaimer: TSLA stock owner.

altoz 13y ago

"...the costs will be substantial..." This is an article of faith for the green crowd. I and many others are skeptical of such a claim, especially when temperatures have dropped despite higher emissions the past 10 years.

jshen 13y ago
"temperatures have dropped despite higher emissions the past 10 years." Please link to a source for this claim. Update: I'm not seeing this drop you are talking about. http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/climatechange/2013/590x375_02012255_screen-shot-2013-02-01-at-5.58.35-pm.png http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/c...
- jckt 13y ago
  This is probably relevant http://www.climatecentral.org/news/why-the-globe-hasnt-warmed-much-for-the-past-decade-15788 http://www.climatecentral.org/news/why-the-globe-hasnt-warme... "The answer, according to a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters, is that a lot of it is being stored in the deep ocean, more than a half-mile down[...] [b]ut sooner or later it will inevitably emerge, which means that the current slowdown in warming may well be balanced by a period of rapid warming in a few years — nobody knows how many — from now." I think he meant that the global rate of increase in temperature has dropped, ie temperature has hardly changed in the last 10 years.
  - marshray 13y ago
    > Ordinarily, heat trapped by greenhouse gases would warm the ocean’s surface water, but since warm water floats on top of colder water, the heat would have a hard time percolating to the depths. “You need something to push it down,” Trenberth said. That something could easily be strong prevailing winds, which can literally stir things up — or in this case, down. This article is claiming that "the Globe Hasn’t Warmed Much for the Past Decade" because the wind is blowing the heat energy down into the depths of the ocean?

sc68cal 13y ago

The long-term costs of carbon emissions will be a public cost. It follows a pattern that has become quite common recently in America, where the profits are kept by the company and shareholders, while the costs are borne by the public. So don't be surprised that the Cato institute discounts that fact, since their funding comes from industries that can only survive by perpetuating this system.