←back to thread

1336 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 #
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 #
bflesch ◴[] No.43796458{3}[source]
Meanwhile jet fuel for private jets is (and remains) not taxed at all, even in the EU.
replies(5): >>43796774 #>>43796932 #>>43797503 #>>43797554 #>>43799073 #
cogman10 ◴[] No.43796774{4}[source]
Which is bonkers. If ever there was a thing that should be taxed it's jet fuel for private jets. 300% tax on private jet fuel would be reasonable.

The emissions just to shuttle rich people from one side of the country to the next (For some, multiple times per day) is insane. You should need to be a billionaire just to afford flying private jets and it should still eat a significant portion of your income if that's what you choose to do.

And for what? Like, we live in the modern era, why does anyone need to travel from NY to Florida to Texas to California in a day?

replies(1): >>43797165 #
Gibbon1 ◴[] No.43797165{5}[source]
I have a suspicion the reason why super wealthy people like say Musk but he isn't the only one hate subways and high speed rail is because they fly everywhere. You might like if you could get on the subway in Glen Park and be at lands end in half an hour. You might like getting on a high speed rail and being in LA in 4 hours.

These guy will never ride a subway or take a train anywhere.

replies(3): >>43797540 #>>43798288 #>>43800552 #
renewiltord ◴[] No.43800552{6}[source]
LOL on an e-bike I can beat BART to SFO from Glen Park unless you time both to start at just the moment BART arrives instead of at a random moment. If you want a Glen Park to Lands End to take under 30 minutes, the cost would rival the Iraq War.
replies(1): >>43802399 #
1. cogman10 ◴[] No.43802399{7}[source]
Looks like the trains are running every 30 minutes.

A super easy solution that doesn't cost the iraq war is adding new trains and running them every 15 minutes.

You'd have to deal with lower occupancy trains as a result, which means it's not as cost efficient.