How Tesla Will Change the World (2015) | Hacker News Reader

How Tesla Will Change the World (2015)

waitbutwhy.com

51 pointsdoener15 comments

A carbon tax would have been a more efficient way of nudging the economy towards green behavior than subsidizing the development of electric sportscars for people who already have car(s). It's hard to consumerism your way to ecological friendliness.

And yet, it works. Who would have thought?

Or driving small businesses out. Carbon taxes make it difficult for smaller Factories to pay their utility bills. So they either close or lay off workers.

Musk's plan is to build sportscars and eventually transition into more 'family' cars. His process is fairly simple starting with limited runs of Luxury Electric cars to build a foundation/infrastructure, and then pivot into more mainstream affordable markets once technology/consumer opinion has advanced.

> Musk's plan is to build sportscars and eventually transition into more 'family' cars.

The thing bugging me about this frequently repeated statement is that they could've easily made a taller Model S Estate version (just change the suspension a bit), put some plastic skirts and terrain looks on it - a squarely 'family' car, like a Subaru Outback or an Audi Allroad - several years ago, and it would've sold like hotcakes.

Instead they did the Model X "SUV", which is a slightly enlarged Toyota Prius in terms of size, and which is on track to see maybe 20k cars sold in 2017 - hardly a resounding success when just the Nissan Rogue "SUV" in the same segment is on track to see 200k sold in 2017.

* I say "SUV" about these cars because a proper SUV is something with a low-range gearbox, 4wd with mechanically locking diffs all around, trunk big enough for bringing a couple of Alaskan Malamutes along, and where you can buy a snorkel for the air intake for wading across rivers. When Mercedes called the GLC an SUV everyone laughed, but the nearly identical Model X gets a free pass.

Do you have evidence that a carbon tax would be more efficient in the US?

On the other hand, targeted subsidies can push economies of scale to tipping points of self-sustainability.

If there's lots of low hanging fruit then a broad tax/subsidy makes sense, but if you need high levels of investment into specific things to make a difference, then use the tool for the job.

Which end of the spectrum incentivizing green behavior/tech mainly lies towards is left as an exercise for the reader.

We have carbon tax in BC for awhile... Personally, and people I know, generally aren't being much greener unless it's related general advancements in technology (eg led, hybrids etc).

Instead it's hitting us in the pocket, when it's already higher cost of living in Vancouver.

We pay highest gas prices in all of north america cause of it... Doesn't make us drive less... Just makes us spend more.

Electricity has had 20% price increase over last few years, and expecting additional increases... So adding a electric vehicle doesn't sound so good when not a vast charging network/speed and are already paying tier2 (kwh rates higher)

Transit isn't improving for the fastest growing suburbs very much. (While the transit execs are getting big bonus).

Carbon tax is like a farce, like offsets imho from a high level

The trouble (IMO) with carbon tax on consumers is that it assumes demand (e.g. for driving your car) is elastic, when we know it's actually pretty inelastic.

We actually have decades of data of inflation-adjusted increase in fuel price positively correlated with increase in driving, from all over the world.

Carbon tax on businesses though, I think are much better - certainly they are if it spurs them to do stuff like carbon capture, or installing on-site renewables, etc.

Did BC implement it in a revenue neutral way (eg carbon dividend, or by cutting other taxes to match), or was it a net tax increase?

Because it sounds like you actually object to tax hikes in general, not to a specific policy of what actions should be taxed.

Gp appears to dislike policy-driven tax hikes which are ineffective at achieving the goal of the policy. See the difference?

Mea culpa. My brain skipped right over the vague anecdote intended to show that it's ineffective. Obviously actual data are needed.

>The 12.9% decrease in British Columbia’s per capita emissions in 2008-2013 compared to 2000-2007 was three-and-a-half times as pronounced as the 3.7% per capita decline for the rest of Canada.

https://www.carbontax.org/blog/2015/12/17/british-columbias-...

A carbon tax causes industries to flee into other regions/countries where there are no carbon taxes.

Subsidies on green energy don't have the same effect.

It would be the most efficient solution if you could apply it worldwide simultaneously.

You have no idea what you're talking about. A carbon tax is impossible to get through government when enormously well-funded oil special interest groups exist. A sports car is sexy and fun and people want it, and it funds the development of cheaper, mass market models. I repeat you really don't know what you're on about.

>A carbon tax is more efficient

You should know that Elon Musk agrees.

2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DddPNrzpkw

2016: http://www.rgj.com/story/money/business/2016/07/28/elon-musk...

2017: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-26/tesla-s-m...

>subsidizing the development of electric sportscars

There were no subsidies for the development of the Tesla Roadster.

The DOE Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loan program was for the development of the Model S sedan, not the Roadster. It has since been paid back in full, and the taxpayers made money on the deal. It was designed by the Bush DOE to create advanced technology vehicle manufacturing capabilities in the US, which it did.

The ZEV credits produce no revenue until the first car is sold, so they couldn't subsidize the development of the car. ZEV credits are about incentivizing reductions in harmful air pollutants (spoiler alert: people's lungs don't care how rich or poor the car owner who emits harmful pollution is), and again can be earned by any manufacturer who makes zero emissions vehicles. It's not paid by taxpayers, but rather automakers who don't make enough zero emission vehicles.

Or do you mean the $7,500 tax credit for owners (none of which goes to Tesla)? That doesn't kick in until the first car was sold. It was effectively an 8% reduction in price, which increases demand somewhat, but that's it. And again it's open to anyone purchasing a zero emission vehicle.

Would have? We don't have to guess; carbon taxes for automobiles have been widely implemented, especially in Europe. The result was largely growth of diesel-engined vehicles, which have slightly lower CO2 emissions at the cost of higher upfront costs and worse emissions of other pollutants.

Directly funding R&D on electric vehicles has produced better results. Yes, it's distasteful to use income tax policy to subsidize sports cars for millionaires. But if this was the politically possible way to get car-sized batteries built affordably, it was worth it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com