4 ms·

I think a lot of the issues that result in high resource usage emerge from the way as a society we change the norms of what is considered 'essential'. A lot of

I think a lot of the issues that result in high resource usage emerge from the way as a society we change the norms of what is considered 'essential'. A lot of the time, responsible decision making just has to be thrown aside if you want to actually function. Take owning a car as an example (UK perspective here; may differ in the US). With some effort, you can structure your life in such a way that one is not necessary and therefore get by via cycling/public transport. That may mean huge sacrifices, though. Families are often spread far and wide, it's not rare for two cohabiting partners to be stuck in a situation in which living close to work is a 'one or the other' choice. Would taxing fuel more fix that? I'm not sure. I think it's just considered a 'cost of doing business' (i.e. being employed). Similarly, 40 hour+ work weeks are normal. This results in people either trying to maximise their use of downtime (and thus choosing the bus that takes 20 minutes over the walk that takes an hour), or simply being exhausted enough that more 'convenience' purchases feel justified. I think we would all be far better off simply 'doing less' (for lack of a better term), and I think proposals like a basic income go quite far towards achieving that.

cbd1984 12y ago
> Take owning a car as an example (UK perspective here; may differ in the US). With some effort, you can structure your life in such a way that one is not necessary and therefore get by via cycling/public transport. This is extremely tin-eared and utterly ignores the realities of farmers and ranchers. You know, the people who grow the food which the rest of the country relies on. Just blandly stating that cars aren't necessary is wrong.
- stegosaurus 12y ago
  I took quite deliberate care to try to ensure that I spoke only of 'an individual', rather than the collective. You're spot on. The point I'm trying to make, distilled, is that we live in a world that has people commuting tens of miles to work each day. Could we fix that, preferably in a way that's not punitive? I believe without proof that fuel is an inelastic good; doubling the price of fuel (for individual use only) would not result in a halving of its' use, because it's necessary for many. Essentially; it takes effort for people to reduce their usage of some resources. For me to eat half as much cake is relatively trivial, it simply requires willpower. For me to use half as much energy than I do would require a very significant reshuffling of my life. My choices are limited, a tax hike would not change that. I think some people seem to have this idea that taxes are magical beasts. They can work if replacements are actually viable. But taxing food won't mean I eat less, I need it to survive. Hopefully you see what I'm trying to get at here.
- SapphireSun 12y ago
  Farmers and ranchers are <1% of the US population last I heard. They could get an exemption for certain uses if they really needed it, hell we do that all the time. Not sure where I stand on this proposal yet, but policies don't have to be all or none, though administration is far easier if they are.
  - Joeboy 12y ago
    > They could get an exemption for certain uses if they really needed it In the UK (and maybe everywhere else?) agricultural diesel ("red diesel") is taxed separately from consumer petrol/diesel.
    - dtparr 12y ago
      Similar things exist in the US. They sell dyed fuels tax-free (or at a lower rate, I forget). You can apparently also claim a tax refund if you use taxed fuel for farm purposes. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p225/ch14.html#en_US_2014_publink1000218851 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p225/ch14.html#en_US_2014_pu...

cbd1984 12y ago

> Take owning a car as an example (UK perspective here; may differ in the US). With some effort, you can structure your life in such a way that one is not necessary and therefore get by via cycling/public transport. This is extremely tin-eared and utterly ignores the realities of farmers and ranchers. You know, the people who grow the food which the rest of the country relies on. Just blandly stating that cars aren't necessary is wrong.

stegosaurus 12y ago
I took quite deliberate care to try to ensure that I spoke only of 'an individual', rather than the collective. You're spot on. The point I'm trying to make, distilled, is that we live in a world that has people commuting tens of miles to work each day. Could we fix that, preferably in a way that's not punitive? I believe without proof that fuel is an inelastic good; doubling the price of fuel (for individual use only) would not result in a halving of its' use, because it's necessary for many. Essentially; it takes effort for people to reduce their usage of some resources. For me to eat half as much cake is relatively trivial, it simply requires willpower. For me to use half as much energy than I do would require a very significant reshuffling of my life. My choices are limited, a tax hike would not change that. I think some people seem to have this idea that taxes are magical beasts. They can work if replacements are actually viable. But taxing food won't mean I eat less, I need it to survive. Hopefully you see what I'm trying to get at here.
SapphireSun 12y ago
Farmers and ranchers are <1% of the US population last I heard. They could get an exemption for certain uses if they really needed it, hell we do that all the time. Not sure where I stand on this proposal yet, but policies don't have to be all or none, though administration is far easier if they are.
- Joeboy 12y ago
  > They could get an exemption for certain uses if they really needed it In the UK (and maybe everywhere else?) agricultural diesel ("red diesel") is taxed separately from consumer petrol/diesel.
  - dtparr 12y ago
    Similar things exist in the US. They sell dyed fuels tax-free (or at a lower rate, I forget). You can apparently also claim a tax refund if you use taxed fuel for farm purposes. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p225/ch14.html#en_US_2014_publink1000218851 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p225/ch14.html#en_US_2014_pu...