Hacker News Reader

Comment by ben_w | Hacker News Reader

> Are you also proposing a $160/gallon fuel tax?

I've witnessed two political decisions that led to no cars on the roads (the UK fuel strike 23 years ago, and the COVID lockdowns), and in both cases they made the sub/urban environment better immediately.

As soon as batteries or whatever can replace hydrocarbon engines for the average person, then sure $160US/gallon or whatever.

View on HN

For a long time I have casually suggested a fuel tax that goes up by a dime per gallon per month, and just keeps increasing at that rate until the situation improves. It would take years for America to equal the OECD average fuel tax at that pace.

The idea of "increase fuel tax 1% each month that our country emits more capita carbon than the world average, and decrease them 1% if we emit less" would seem like a very sensible law.

But alas, very few laws use that kind of structure - not only in the USA, but anywhere in the world, and not just for environmental stuff, but for any regulated thing.

Instead lawmakers seem to prefer to see some problem, make some move, and then if the problem still exists repeat the process.

I don't really understand the aversion to 'automation' of that loop.

Something something software deployment something something.

And how much do you think the price of groceries will go up?

You are going to need to grandfather users of existing used cars if you don't want a mob with pitchforks and torches. Even when electric cars are affordable on average its necessary to understand the effect on price and value that would be caused by changing incentives. There are around 250 million fossil fuel cars on the road and $160/gallon fuel taxes would make those cars value effectively go to zero while sending electric cars price to the moon.

Even if scaled in over time to avoid breaking the economy you would have a long tail of cheap used cars which would be difficult for users to up and replace owned by those least likely to be able to absorb the shock.

You have folks commuting in a $5000 car for 10 years for which $20,000 would be a financial death sentence. There are plenty of folks who absolutely need a car to be able to work and continually keep an older used car for a LOT less than average.

Not all of these folks could even get a car loan for a compliant car so you would be basically telling them to go fuck themselves.

It makes more sense to simply mandate phasing out manufacturing or importing new gas powered consumer cars and let cars age out rather than using extreme gas taxes as a lever.

You would direct the revenue from the tax into grants for those least able to upgrade to electric on their own. London is doing such a scrappage scheme right now for the latest increase in emissions standards.

You mean another cash for clunkers scheme? Like the one that has caused the prices of cars to skyrocket already?

Yeah, great idea there.

Causing car prices to increase post-recession was kind of the point of cash for clunkers, but I don’t see why something more targeted has to have the same effect.

Yeah, and look where that led us. Have you seen what the average car payment is?

Cash for clunkers has directly caused what will be the next subprime loan crisis.

Why would I want the govt screwing up the situation even more?

No cars on the roads works for short periods of time, but with 15 million people living in e.g. the London metro, you need something to move 15 million people's worth of living logistics (food, goods for sale, garbage removal, etc.). Those are all carried by wheeled vehicles, whether it be cars, vans, or lorries. The niceties of the suburban or urban areas aren't possible without them.

Even if they were all electric or powered by unicorn farts or whatever, it's still millions of multi-ton steel vehicles zipping around leaving as much trace as a multi-ton moving thing would. I grant you at least the air quality would be better without internal combustion.

In the end, all Europe is filled with cute little walkable towns, yet people still congregate to the congested, filthy, car-filled metros, for some reason. And at a certain level of built-up population density, you just can't have a very nice natural environment; the brief moments of peace you observed during the Covid lockdowns or whatever can't last, because that would mean the city itself dies.

Logistics take only fraction of road and parking space that personal transportation takes.

Argument that we'll need to live with 5% or 10% or 20% of traffic we have today, so we can as well do nothing is dishonest.

It's also dishonest to not include an answer for personal transportation. "Public transit" is a handwavy answer, since obviously if personal transportation means are removed, more public transit will be needed, meaning more vehicles (be it trains, buses, or taxis) will be on the road.

Unless your solution is that people should just move less?

To be fair, if people just stayed in their houses and didn't use electricity or water and stopped eating and just died when they ran out of food then we could have the whole CO2 problem wrapped up for a good 1,000 years or so in about 40-60 days, assuming they also took the time to gracefully shut down any operating machinery and safely disposed of any hazardous chemicals while waiting for their impending death.

Humanity might go extinct in the process, but they would have at least stopped further destroying the only planet they have to live on in the process.

I mean, sure, they made the urban environment better, if you don't count people being able to do things in that environment as an improvement.

In lockdown most people sat inside and went a bit crazy. That's not an improvement.

> As soon as batteries or whatever can replace hydrocarbon engines for the average person

Reply on news.ycombinator.com