←back to thread

1329 points kwindla | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
aidenn0 ◴[] No.43795946[source]
For anyone curious, if you made a similarly sized gas-powered pickup with an i4 engine, it would be penalized more than a full-sized pickup for being too fuel inefficient, despite likely getting much better mileage than an F-150 because, since 2011, bigger cars are held to a lesser standard by CAFE[1].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy...

replies(9): >>43796306 #>>43796377 #>>43796399 #>>43797478 #>>43798561 #>>43798794 #>>43798925 #>>43799250 #>>43800495 #
MostlyStable ◴[] No.43796306[source]
Example #5621 that a simple carbon tax would be miles better than the complex morass of regulations we currently have.
replies(10): >>43796437 #>>43796498 #>>43797259 #>>43797297 #>>43797777 #>>43798133 #>>43798144 #>>43798632 #>>43799271 #>>43799782 #
aidenn0 ◴[] No.43796437[source]
That's overly reductive.

1. Poorer people tend to drive older vehicles, so if you solely encourage higher fuel economies by taxing carbon emissions, then the tax is (at least short-term) regressive.

2. You can work around #1 by applying incentives for manufacturers to make more efficient cars should lead any carbon tax

3. If you just reward companies based on fleet-average fuel economy without regard to vehicle size, then it would be rather bad for US car companies (who employ unionized workers) that historically make larger cars than Asian and European companies.

4. So the first thing done was to have a separate standard for passenger vehicles and light-trucks, but this resulted in minivans and SUVs being made in such a way as to get the light-truck rating

5. We then ended up with the size-based calculation we have today, but the formula is (IMO) overly punitive on small vehicles. Given that the formula was forward looking, it was almost certain to be wrong in one direction or the other, but it hasn't been updated.

replies(11): >>43796458 #>>43796539 #>>43796560 #>>43796625 #>>43797425 #>>43797538 #>>43798466 #>>43798489 #>>43798858 #>>43800531 #>>43800991 #
1. xvokcarts ◴[] No.43797538[source]
Looks like as long as only positive change is allowed to touch the poor, there will be little change.
replies(1): >>43798866 #
2. austhrow743 ◴[] No.43798866[source]
Going to let us burn because not doing so would be regressive.