5 ms·

This is why I prefer taxes to regulations. If governments simply said, "pollute as much as you want but we're charging you a progressive tax based on the CO2 o

This is why I prefer taxes to regulations. If governments simply said, "pollute as much as you want but we're charging you a progressive tax based on the CO2 output of your vehicles", then the vast majority of automakers would still push for cleaner engines, because otherwise they'd have to pass the taxes on to the consumer. For commuter cars that compete on price, that would be suicide. But exotics have never and will never compete on price. Ferrari and Lamborghini would be more than happy to pass that tax on to their customers, and the customers would pay the higher prices without blinking. The Earth gets cleaner, governments get richer, and consumers still get to buy what they want.

hydrogen18 12y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax
- rtpg 12y ago
  might be a good time to set that in place for trucks and SUVs
  - chrisan 12y ago
    definitely SUVs trucks/vans you are still going to be hurting the tradesmen that actually need those vehicles for their job
rtpg 12y ago
I don't know if the Earth gets cleaner faster this way. In the US, college is too expensive, so people ask for gov't loans using taxpayer dollars. This ends up rising college prices, since virtually everyone is now guaranteed to be able to pay at least $5k per year instead of $0. I could see a similar situation here where auto manufacturers lobby for subsidies for people buying their first car or whatever, and so the extra taxes ended up getting covered by subsidies. Car companies end up getting more money without having to bother reducing emissions. Generally thinking, I think you will find little sympathy for the poor souls who want to buy a $500k car and drive it at 200mph at 3 mpg (don't know what real numbers look like for these things). Especially not in public areas, in our public space. In any case, pollution makes everyone's lives pretty awful (see recent pictures of cities in China), so that ends up being prioritised. Maybe with a tax, only 1% of cars will be over some limit, but with regulations, pretty much 0% will. In an alternate universe, some NRA-like figure is arguing about how if we outlaw polluting cars, only criminals will have polluting cars.
- redthrowaway 12y ago
  I think the Earth gets cleaner at largely the same rate. The drive to compete on prices forces 99% of the cars sold to be optimized towards lowered emissions (accounting for the increased price of those optimizations). I don't find your subsidy argument persuasive. There's never been (to my knowledge) a government subsidy for buying cars (outside of cash for clunkers, which was stimulus disguised as subsidy), and I don't see a carbon tax affecting that. As for college being expensive, like many things that's an American phenomenon. The rest of the western world seems to get by just fine with affordable education and healthcare. Even here in Canada, where education is far more expensive than in Europe, our tuition is pretty reasonable (~$2500/semester). I graduated with a BSc in CS and $38k in student loans, and I took my sweet time about it.
- gambiting 12y ago
  This system already works in the UK. You have to pay larger tax for larger emissions,and some manufacturers(Nissan, Citroen, Land Rover) have completely removed larger engines from their offers, because clients were not interested in buying them and taking a hit on their annual tax. At least that's what UK Land Rover branch told me - their % of petrol Range Rovers is close to zero, while in other EU countries which don't have tax tied to emissions sells mostly petrol Range Rovers(which have larger engines with larger emissions) because there is effectively no penalty for choosing them over the slower diesels.
wvenable 12y ago
So because I'm poor, I don't (for cost reasons) pollute the environment but someone who is rich can pollute as much as they want.
- derefr 12y ago
  No, that's the inherent state of things before a tax: if you buy 10x more of something (because you can afford it), you'll be responsible for 10x the environmental externalities, but won't be feeling 10x worse about it. A progressive tax tries to make the 10x purchase sting the rich person who made it more than the 1x purchase stings the poor person who made it.
  - seanp2k2 12y ago
    Yup, this has always been the case. Also, if you have more money, you can and probably do travel more, which is also worse for the environment. You'll probably have a bigger house which uses more energy. You'll probably have more stuff which took energy to make. You'll likely eat out more, which involves transportation of you to a place to eat, other people there to prepare your food, ingredients to the place, waste from dishes, etc etc etc. And if you're wealthy, you'll probably want to not just have all that die with you, so you'll likely do one of the worst things possible for the environment and have a kid or three, who will go on to pollute the world for the next 100+ years.
    - zo1 12y ago
      I wonder, you seem to have some sort of magical wand that conjures money and wealth out of nowhere, to support your argument. Bear with me: Those wealthy people that you so complain about spending their money, earned their money through some sort of market process. (Aside from obvious criminal behavior). Those market processes are the accumulated spending of (probably poor) individuals. i.e. The wealth was not generated and given to the rich in a vacuum. And here is your paragraph, rephrased to refer to those market masses instead of the targeted rich: All those individuals had money, they had to move around. They had a house/shack/apartment, that used energy (aside from hut-dwellers). They have stuff which takes energy to make, and use also. They also have to eat, which involves transportation to the place to eat, people to prepare it, ingredients to place, waste from dishes, etc etc etc. And if they're living (which they probably are), they'll probably want to have a few kids, which is one of the worst things possible for the environment and have a kid or three, who will go on to pollute the world for the next 100+ years.
WalterBright 12y ago
The current system (at least in Washington State) is one of if your car pollutes at a rate < x, you're legal. If it pollutes x+epsilon, you are illegal. The rate of pollution has not much to do with the amount of pollution emitted, much like how fast you drive has little to do with how many miles you drive in a year. The current system makes little practical or fair sense. A better system would be to annually measure the pollution rate of the car, multiply by the number of miles driven that year, and multiply by the tax rate. This way, car buyers would not be solely concerned with their car passing the pollution test, but would be actively concerned with minimizing its emissions.
tormeh 12y ago
We all know the optimal solution is a tax on carbon fuel as it is imported and domestically produced. A simple way to tax the actual problem directly. It's not like the concept of taxing Exxon for all gas for domestic use is hard to understand, but it's politically hard to implement. This is a regressive tax, but the effects can be fixed with progressive policies elsewhere. Like, I don't know, free health care.
- justincormack 12y ago
  The US has some of the lowest fuel taxes in the world (outside countries that subsidize fuel, like Venezuela), and falling oil prices would be the ideal time to increase them.
7952 12y ago
In the UK it is already much more expensive to have a gas guzzling car both through tax on fuel on yearly tax on the car (which is based on emissions). I think it does lead to people buying more efficient cars. But it seems unlikely that it will lead to the adoption of zero emission vehicles any time soon. Far too much emphasis is put on CO2; something that has a very intangible effect on people every days lives. Pollution is still seen as an abstract problem that people can fuel endless bikeshed arguments. Yet everyone knows that exhaust is toxic and poisonous. If you lock yourself it in a garage with the engine running on a 1 Litre Aygo will kill you just as much as a 4 litre turbo charged Ferrari. Old fashioned fossil fuel engines cause serious health problems and need to be eliminated. They are legacy technology that should be as unfashionable as owning an old feature phone. Taxation does not change peoples perceptions.

hydrogen18 12y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax

rtpg 12y ago
might be a good time to set that in place for trucks and SUVs
- chrisan 12y ago
  definitely SUVs trucks/vans you are still going to be hurting the tradesmen that actually need those vehicles for their job

rtpg 12y ago

I don't know if the Earth gets cleaner faster this way. In the US, college is too expensive, so people ask for gov't loans using taxpayer dollars. This ends up rising college prices, since virtually everyone is now guaranteed to be able to pay at least $5k per year instead of $0. I could see a similar situation here where auto manufacturers lobby for subsidies for people buying their first car or whatever, and so the extra taxes ended up getting covered by subsidies. Car companies end up getting more money without having to bother reducing emissions. Generally thinking, I think you will find little sympathy for the poor souls who want to buy a $500k car and drive it at 200mph at 3 mpg (don't know what real numbers look like for these things). Especially not in public areas, in our public space. In any case, pollution makes everyone's lives pretty awful (see recent pictures of cities in China), so that ends up being prioritised. Maybe with a tax, only 1% of cars will be over some limit, but with regulations, pretty much 0% will. In an alternate universe, some NRA-like figure is arguing about how if we outlaw polluting cars, only criminals will have polluting cars.

redthrowaway 12y ago
I think the Earth gets cleaner at largely the same rate. The drive to compete on prices forces 99% of the cars sold to be optimized towards lowered emissions (accounting for the increased price of those optimizations). I don't find your subsidy argument persuasive. There's never been (to my knowledge) a government subsidy for buying cars (outside of cash for clunkers, which was stimulus disguised as subsidy), and I don't see a carbon tax affecting that. As for college being expensive, like many things that's an American phenomenon. The rest of the western world seems to get by just fine with affordable education and healthcare. Even here in Canada, where education is far more expensive than in Europe, our tuition is pretty reasonable (~$2500/semester). I graduated with a BSc in CS and $38k in student loans, and I took my sweet time about it.
gambiting 12y ago
This system already works in the UK. You have to pay larger tax for larger emissions,and some manufacturers(Nissan, Citroen, Land Rover) have completely removed larger engines from their offers, because clients were not interested in buying them and taking a hit on their annual tax. At least that's what UK Land Rover branch told me - their % of petrol Range Rovers is close to zero, while in other EU countries which don't have tax tied to emissions sells mostly petrol Range Rovers(which have larger engines with larger emissions) because there is effectively no penalty for choosing them over the slower diesels.

wvenable 12y ago

So because I'm poor, I don't (for cost reasons) pollute the environment but someone who is rich can pollute as much as they want.

derefr 12y ago
No, that's the inherent state of things before a tax: if you buy 10x more of something (because you can afford it), you'll be responsible for 10x the environmental externalities, but won't be feeling 10x worse about it. A progressive tax tries to make the 10x purchase sting the rich person who made it more than the 1x purchase stings the poor person who made it.
- seanp2k2 12y ago
  Yup, this has always been the case. Also, if you have more money, you can and probably do travel more, which is also worse for the environment. You'll probably have a bigger house which uses more energy. You'll probably have more stuff which took energy to make. You'll likely eat out more, which involves transportation of you to a place to eat, other people there to prepare your food, ingredients to the place, waste from dishes, etc etc etc. And if you're wealthy, you'll probably want to not just have all that die with you, so you'll likely do one of the worst things possible for the environment and have a kid or three, who will go on to pollute the world for the next 100+ years.
  - zo1 12y ago
    I wonder, you seem to have some sort of magical wand that conjures money and wealth out of nowhere, to support your argument. Bear with me: Those wealthy people that you so complain about spending their money, earned their money through some sort of market process. (Aside from obvious criminal behavior). Those market processes are the accumulated spending of (probably poor) individuals. i.e. The wealth was not generated and given to the rich in a vacuum. And here is your paragraph, rephrased to refer to those market masses instead of the targeted rich: All those individuals had money, they had to move around. They had a house/shack/apartment, that used energy (aside from hut-dwellers). They have stuff which takes energy to make, and use also. They also have to eat, which involves transportation to the place to eat, people to prepare it, ingredients to place, waste from dishes, etc etc etc. And if they're living (which they probably are), they'll probably want to have a few kids, which is one of the worst things possible for the environment and have a kid or three, who will go on to pollute the world for the next 100+ years.

WalterBright 12y ago

The current system (at least in Washington State) is one of if your car pollutes at a rate < x, you're legal. If it pollutes x+epsilon, you are illegal. The rate of pollution has not much to do with the amount of pollution emitted, much like how fast you drive has little to do with how many miles you drive in a year. The current system makes little practical or fair sense. A better system would be to annually measure the pollution rate of the car, multiply by the number of miles driven that year, and multiply by the tax rate. This way, car buyers would not be solely concerned with their car passing the pollution test, but would be actively concerned with minimizing its emissions.

tormeh 12y ago

We all know the optimal solution is a tax on carbon fuel as it is imported and domestically produced. A simple way to tax the actual problem directly. It's not like the concept of taxing Exxon for all gas for domestic use is hard to understand, but it's politically hard to implement. This is a regressive tax, but the effects can be fixed with progressive policies elsewhere. Like, I don't know, free health care.

justincormack 12y ago
The US has some of the lowest fuel taxes in the world (outside countries that subsidize fuel, like Venezuela), and falling oil prices would be the ideal time to increase them.

7952 12y ago

In the UK it is already much more expensive to have a gas guzzling car both through tax on fuel on yearly tax on the car (which is based on emissions). I think it does lead to people buying more efficient cars. But it seems unlikely that it will lead to the adoption of zero emission vehicles any time soon. Far too much emphasis is put on CO2; something that has a very intangible effect on people every days lives. Pollution is still seen as an abstract problem that people can fuel endless bikeshed arguments. Yet everyone knows that exhaust is toxic and poisonous. If you lock yourself it in a garage with the engine running on a 1 Litre Aygo will kill you just as much as a 4 litre turbo charged Ferrari. Old fashioned fossil fuel engines cause serious health problems and need to be eliminated. They are legacy technology that should be as unfashionable as owning an old feature phone. Taxation does not change peoples perceptions.