←back to thread

1329 points kwindla | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.222s | 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 #
bgnn ◴[] No.43797777[source]
why can't we just tax the gas at the pump? this is, at least, what I'm used to in Europe.
replies(1): >>43797791 #
brianwawok ◴[] No.43797791[source]
We do. But it’s a super regressive tax. Lots of very poor people depend on a bad MPG car to get to work and live.
replies(2): >>43798845 #>>43801046 #
morepedantic ◴[] No.43801046[source]
If you subsidize polluting life-styles, you'll get pollution.

You think the rich suffer from pollution and car dependency? It's not at all clear that taxing gas will lead to worse outcomes for the poor. It's entirely clear that subsidizing pollution from the poor will lead to worse outcomes for the planet.

replies(1): >>43802915 #
1. kaishiro ◴[] No.43802915[source]
What isn’t clear about the fact that increasing commuting costs for those living paycheck to paycheck leads to a worse outcome?