←back to thread

1457 points kwindla | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.809s | 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(10): >>43796306 #>>43796377 #>>43796399 #>>43797478 #>>43798561 #>>43798794 #>>43798925 #>>43799250 #>>43800495 #>>43808501 #
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 #
morepedantic ◴[] No.43800991[source]
TIL poor people can't pollute, so their market segment shouldn't be incentivized to cut pollution.

TIL that US car companies won't make smaller cars in the face of different regulations, even though they made larger cars in response to current regulations.

The only way to avoid perversions is to tax the problem directly. The market will adjust to all proxies in unintended and harmful ways.

replies(1): >>43801256 #
1. parineum ◴[] No.43801256[source]
A disincentive on a thing you don't want makes people choose another thing that you may or may not want.

The only way to avoid perversions is to incentivize the things you want.

Taxing cigarettes led to vaping. Maybe less bad but still a nuisance.

replies(1): >>43809595 #
2. morepedantic ◴[] No.43809595[source]
Are you agreeing with me, or did you drop a negative twice?
replies(1): >>43812890 #
3. parineum ◴[] No.43812890[source]
You're statement is not true.

Disincentives don't make people make good choices, they make them make different choices.

Incentives guide people to make a specific choice.

replies(1): >>43866360 #
4. morepedantic ◴[] No.43866360{3}[source]
It is the role of a central planner to pick a particular outcome, and it's also the worst strategy of the modern era.

Everything which is not forbidden is allowed. Your belief that you should make the positive choice on behalf of others is the most dangerous philosophy of the 20th century.