Hacker News Reader

Comment by awjr | Hacker News Reader

Ok let's be real here, if we put the "pollution" taxes onto fuel and not on the design of the car, this problem, in effect, goes away.

There is still the issue that high efficiency, usually means running the engine at high temperatures which generates far more NOx gases.

We should be taxing the amount of fuel used.

View on HN

That works for CO2, because there is no technology to mitigate CO2 release from combustion. But that isn't the case for particulate matter, carbon monoxide, or nitrogen oxides. You can't put a NOx tax on diesel because the amount of NOx you produce from burning a given quantity of diesel will vary by two orders of magnitude depending on the pollution controls.

Just one clarification, CO2 recapture is a thing, for example in coal power plants built after 2014 in US. But yeah for car, really impractical.

Additional fuel taxes are typically not a welcome change among the pubic. I agree that logically this is what should be done, but everyone fills up their gas tank every few hours/days/weeks and sees that price. People only buy new cars every once in a while, and they expect a large purchase price. I think psychologically taxing the vehicle and not the fuel is more of a people pleaser.

And yet, todays weighted average tax for the US is $.4888 per gallon (54.50 for Diesel). Today's national average price of $2.28 puts that at ~21.4%. That probably puts gas up there with one of the most taxed things I buy.

Whole environment damage including the manufacturing should be taxed. Of course this can only be estimated.

Every engine and car produces different environment waste.

For example a Tesla S produces much more carbon in it's production than a gasoline car. There are also other toxins which are produced concerning different type of cars.

A diesel produces NOx but can reduce it with filters.

Just taxing the fuel used is just stupid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com