←back to thread

A $20k American-made electric pickup with no paint, no stereo, no screen

(www.theverge.com)
1329 points kwindla | 7 comments | 25 Apr 25 15:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.331s | source | bottom
Show context
aidenn0 ◴[25 Apr 25 16:56 UTC] 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 ◴[25 Apr 25 17:26 UTC] 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 #
guywithahat ◴[25 Apr 25 20:21 UTC] No.43798144[source]▶
I don’t think it would be possible to produce a carbon tax that’s simple
replies(1): >>43798284 #
1. patmcc ◴[25 Apr 25 20:38 UTC] No.43798284[source]▶
Tax the fuel. Gasoline now has a $X/gallon tax, as does propane, as does coal, whatever.

What is the difficulty with that?

replies(2): >>43798346 #>>43802093 #
2. kasey_junk ◴[25 Apr 25 20:45 UTC] No.43798346[source]▶
It’s extremely regressive. You’d need to also give a rebate based on income level.
replies(3): >>43798402 #>>43799315 #>>43801065 #
3. Spooky23 ◴[25 Apr 25 20:52 UTC] No.43798402[source]▶
That’s the excuse that is used for agriculture. They sell a vision of a Fisher Price toy farm, but make policy for giant Midwest farms.

The proverbial blue collar truck owner is already screwed. Random surburban dude should be paying through the nose for his F-250. Create demand for fuel efficiency, and you’ll have cars like my dad’s 1993 Escort Wagon, that got 45mpg.

4. patmcc ◴[25 Apr 25 23:06 UTC] No.43799315[source]▶
Give everybody $1000 (or whatever) to offset that. Ends up being neutral for some folks, a net benefit to the poor, and a net cost to the rich. This is already how lots of jurisdictions handle regressive taxes.
5. morepedantic ◴[26 Apr 25 04:57 UTC] No.43801065[source]▶
Tax the poor for carbon emission. They'll adjust. People will walk, bike, take the bus, car pool, and buy used hybrids instead of mustangs.

PS, regressive use taxes are 100% moral, fine, upstanding, and ethical.

replies(1): >>43803570 #
6. hamilyon2 ◴[26 Apr 25 09:22 UTC] No.43802093[source]▶
Not clear what is meant here. Does ethanol from corn count? Methane from waste dumps? Gray hydrogen? Wood pellets? Ammonia?

Electricity from unclear source?

Human ingenuity is infinite. It is not enough to enact simple rules, people will just produce electricity with hydrogen and claim it green if it will make them profit. If it will help them evade carbon tax. Nevermind that hydrogen came from some extremely polluting process involving damaging our planet atmosphere and everyone's health.

7. kasey_junk ◴[26 Apr 25 13:45 UTC] No.43803570{3}[source]▶
> regressive use taxes are 100% moral, fine, upstanding, and ethical

Turns out you are wrong.