←back to thread

1321 points kwindla | 1 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 #
ponector ◴[] No.43798133[source]
I think the best way is to tax fuel itself. This way worse mpg result in more tax.

Tax diesel more than gasoline, LNG less.

replies(5): >>43798259 #>>43798400 #>>43798733 #>>43799043 #>>43799069 #
ChadNauseam ◴[] No.43798400[source]
That makes sense, but there would be no incentive to switch to an engine that emits less carbon for the same fuel consumption (if such a thing exists)
replies(2): >>43798445 #>>43798493 #
1. idiotsecant ◴[] No.43798493[source]
By definition, more carbon is less efficiency. Efficiency is about how much of the hydrocarbon you turn into heat. Diesels often burn a little dirty. That's partly because diesel engines don't burn all the fuel