Hacker News Reader

Comment by jokoon | Hacker News Reader

I'm quite curious to see how EU countries will abide to those rules, it is going to be messy and I wonder if there will be fines, I guess there won't...

I guess europe can expect a whole lot of yellow vest-style protests.

I keep reading that the yellow vest were arguing that the carbon tax was hitting the poor more, but in the end, carbon benefits everyone, not just the rich.

It's true that the rich emits more, it's true that the rich can adapt more easily, but in the end, the rich will also lose income because of a carbon tax. I'm not sure that "carbon inequality" is very high (even though air travel seems to really increase that carbon inequality).

I also really believe that fossil fuels allowed the poor to get out of poverty. It's necessary to cut down CO2 emissions, but it's also necessary to anticipate the social cost, because it is going to be huge and put a lot of people out of a job.

View on HN

> It's true that the rich emits more, it's true that the rich can adapt more easily, but in the end, the rich will also lose income because of a carbon tax. I'm not sure that "carbon inequality" is very high (even though air travel seems to really increase that carbon inequality).

Can you elaborate on this, and in particular on "rich emits more"? Do you mean per individual? If so, that may be the case, but absolute numbers matter more in this problem. The inequality is a social problem. Climate change does not care if the CO2 came from rich or from poor. I'm by no means trying to excuse the rich. What I'm saying is we should be careful to not distract ourselves from solving the actual problem here.

> Do you mean per individual?

Yes, per individual.

The rich are housed in larger homes, travel more, consume more.

Of course it's a generalization of, let's say, the richer 5% or 10%, so of course it's not always true. But there is a good correlation between consumption dollars and emitted CO2.

> but absolute numbers matter more in this problem

Indeed. And "World's richest 1% cause double CO2 emissions of poorest 50%, says Oxfam" [0]

It's not double per person. It's the total. So focusing on the rich is definitely not distracting from the actual problem. It is the actual problem.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-r...

I generally agree. But if we don't cut co2 emissions the social cost will be even higher.

One of the issues with the carbon tax as was proposed in France is that it did not offer an alternative.

Many people rely on cars and, especially, utility vehicles for their livelihood and mobility. Slapping an extra tax on them without a viable alternative does not reduce emissions, it only makes people poorer. That's part of the reasons the public backlash was intense.

I think that should be one of the lessons learned for the transition to EV to happen smoothly.

> Many people rely on cars and, especially, utility vehicles for their livelihood and mobility. Slapping an extra tax on them without a viable alternative does not reduce emissions,

It is far from this simple.

In the 2010's when a barrel of oil jumped to over $110 USD and gas prices spiked, people drove less and changed their purchasing habits to favour smaller vehicles.

When the prices dropped, those behaviours reverted.

That natural experiment shows us that there are a wide range of adaptations people will engage in that allow them to adjust to higher fuel prices while lowering carbon emissions.

> it only makes people poorer.

And this is why well-designed carbon tax programs include rebate and subsidy mechanisms to help relieve the financial burden and support the transition to EVs.

We've also seen some governments shift their tax burdens around. e.g. lowering income tax and applying a carbon tax. This helps get more money back into peoples pockets while still sending a price signal that leads to a change in consumer behaviour.

I think the price of oil is not key to what happened in France, apart perhaps from somewhat exacerbating the issue at a specific time. Again, they tried to slap an extra tax on fuel "because the environment", which people had no choice but to pay.

Sure, people might drive slightly less if fuel prices get high but this only means less trips that can be avoided. Going to work, going to supermarket, using utility vehicles for business cannot be avoided in most cases.

If you're a tradesperson or on low pay in a small town outside of Paris you depend on your vehicle for everything, you cannot "just drive less" and you cannot afford a band new one. So that extra tax directly reduced your (potentially already low) income without making any difference on emissions and the environment.

Basically many people thought the government disconnected from reality and was treating them as cash cows when they were not that well off to start with.

So, these measures must be staggered in time with a clear schedule so people can plan in advance and there must be viable EV alternatives for people, all the people, to switch to (viable means existing and affordable).

>Slapping an extra tax on them without a viable alternative does not reduce emissions, it only makes people poorer.

The CO2 tax changes what is viable and what isn't.

That's what they said with congestion taxes too. "People need to drive in the city. It will hit the poorest the most!" But in almost every city where it has been implemented it has reduced congestion. Same with taxes on tobacco which has reduced smoking in many countries. It's essentially the only thing economists agree on - higher taxes reduces consumption.

Of course, fuel is so cheap that you need to raise taxes significantly for them to have any effect. After all, fuel is just a small fraction of the total cost of owning a car.

I think you need to look at whether alternatives exist. All cities that have a congestion charge have a well developed public transport system, as far as know. So making driving into the city more expensive may nudge people into switching to public transport. How big the effect may be is another issue. Poor people also often already take public transport into cities (in Europe at least), not least because even without congestion charge, parking charges are usually very high.

Tobacco is neither here nor there because, obviously, people do have the choice not to smoke.

On the other hand, when you're in an area with little to no public transport and the only way for you to go to work or go to the supermarket, or do anything really, is to drive there is no alternative. When you're a delivery driver there is no alternative. When you're a tradesperson there is no alternative.

There is no alternative because EVs either do not really exist (electric utility vehicles only start to be available) or are way beyond what you can afford and you do need a vehicle.

Basically in France this was seen as Macron's "let them eat cake" moment with well-off people in Paris (with its world-class public transport system) deciding that everyone in the country could "just" drive less or change car.

I don't buy that argument. Join a car pool, buy an electric scooter, or a moped if fuel taxes bothers you so much. In general, I think it is a tragedy that we worry so much about the problems of those poor, poor motorists when our beds are burning.

Honestly, I think the voters are plain stupid because there is no better explanation for it. For example. The greens in Germany want to make the CO2 tax revenue neutral. You then get people complaining that getting their tax payments back is unfair because there is that one millionaire who spent hundreds of thousands of euros on being CO2 neutral and thus pays nothing in CO2 taxes and gets a whopping 75€ per year back from the state.

The benefit from the reduction in CO2 emissions (from average to 0) is already worth more than 75€ so the state is getting a bargain. Imagine that for every 1€ you spend someone else spends 1000€ in reducing their CO2 emissions. Where else can you get a 100000% ROI on this planet?

Of course this is where that fictional scenario breaks down. Those people are the exception. There are maybe 100000 of them in Germany. The vast majority of people that receive money back are going to be average people who emitted an average amount of CO2.

It won't change anything in my country (Ger). People think they can nudge consumers, but we already have the highest energy price in the world. It would only make sense if there would be alternatives available that would actually change anything in reality aside from pushing state income.

Don't listen to my complaints, people are rich enough to ignore this tax (it isn't technically a tax) aside from the poorest of course.

Anyone would use the less CO2 polluting alternative were it available.

This is plain bad policy crafting in my opinion.

Coal plants are shutting down as a result of the CO2 tax and there is a shift to natural gas which will reduce the impact of CO2 taxes. The EEG can also be abolished once the CO2 tax is high enough because there won't be a need for a feed in tariff because consumer demand for renewables will be high enough to pay for renewables directly.

Energy is still pretty cheap in Germany. How many people choose a smaller car because gas is too expensive? Very few. How many people choose a bike for short trips because gas is too expensive? Very few. How many choose to pay higher rent and move to a city, because commuting from a suburb consumes too much gas? How many people try to form carpools because gas is too expensive?

The problem is that for some reason our politicians don't want to raise prices in a way that doesn't hit the poorest. For example with a tax&dividend system.

Overall car ownership will most likely take a large dip until second-hand EV's are cheap enough and the power grid modernized. It'll require decades of large-scale social and infrastructural programs in order to catch up.

I don't think they are banning ICE cars--just new ICE cars. Anyways, simultaneous with electric cars being a big thing, e-bikes are taking off. Many European cities are wonderfully suited to e-bikes, so that may take the pressure off of needing to own a car for local trips.

Questionable. Prices for fuel will rise and people pay more. End of story.

Infrastructure sometimes requires you to have a car. Fuel price must change by a few magnitudes to change consumer behavior.

I can guarantee that 2022 will have more cars and more energy use than 2021. To be fair: I don't think there is any policy that could change that fact.

> Overall car ownership will most likely take a large dip

It many cases it's not possible for people to do away with their cars.

So the political reality is that governments needs to ensure that people can afford to switch to EV (and that the infrastructure follows) or face riots if they make car-ownership impossible.

Or make other changes that make it possible for more people to do away with cars- better mass transit, better pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, less urban sprawl, more condensed housing options, etc

Yeah, I suspect it's going to be more people packed into smaller areas, and massive investments in public transport infrastructure. There's going to be a lot of people who don't buy it.

The point is that there are many locations and situations where this is not really realistic, and that "more condensed housing" takes a century.

So practically and politically it is not possible to hit cars in general. Encourage alternatives where-ever possible but realise that there are not always alternatives and in those cases people should not be penalised for driving. Instead there should be support to transition to EV.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com