Well taxes on cars and fuel are being paid. So what additions are you talking about?
Also, it's certainly fair to be in favor of something and to have an opinion. It's a different matter to get a bill written and passed by democratic legislators. When it isn't (because let's be real, America is not restructuring it's entire lifestyle), is that fair?
Taxes on fuel are clearly not enough, and not being spent on direct mitigation, which is necessary. The taxes need to, for example, be enough to pay for carbon extraction, plus the cleanup or costs of pollution from tire particulates, etc., etc.
America is totally governmentally dysfunctional and I have no solution (I'm not American, I live in the UK, which is not that much better.)
If you think US suburban living is more detrimental than beneficial, the answer would be whatever level of taxation forces people to give up their suburban and a exurban lifestyles.
"Hey everyone, we need you abandon the single biggest asset you own for pennies on the dollar. Then move into some shit hole apartment building with paper thin walls. Oh no you won't own it, you'll just pay someone else who owns it and will evict you for any reason at all. Don't forget you'll have the added convenience of mass transit on public transit's schedule, including cancellations."
I wonder why people aren't jumping at the chance to move into dense cities?
No, that's not what pricing in externalities is. It'd be taxing at whatever level is necessary to pay for the damages caused, not at the level that forces people not to do the damage.
Nature does not offer the option of “paying for the damages caused”. We cannot fix it or replace it like a fungible good. You either prevent the damage from occurring, or you deal with the consequences.
E.g. the damage to communities from being in isolated residences in unwalkable communities where kids cannot freely play outside has no dollar amount.
>We cannot fix it or replace it like a fungible good.
That rather depends on exactly what we're talking about. CO2 can be stripped from the atmosphere, for example. It's just somewhat expensive.
>E.g. the damage to communities from being in isolated residences in unwalkable communities where kids cannot freely play outside has no dollar amount.
Sure it does. Even deaths have reasonably well established values, legally speaking. And things like expected future medical costs or lost productivity are much more straightforward to assign a value.
Our opinions will have to differ then. There is no number I would accept for the loss kids experience by not having a “right to roam” due to being cordoned by paths for high speed vehicles on all sides.
Probability of success is too low to make it a worthwhile investment. Also, affecting change in zoning/local efforts is useless. It would have to be a federal (and maybe global) level tax on fossil fuels, otherwise the arbitrage opportunities make it ineffective.
But the cost per mile driven isn't. Regardless, pricing in externalities is about preventing market distortion by buyers foisting the costs of goods/services onto other parties, not about directly deciding what people are permitted or able to buy.
So long as you're willing to pay full price for a loaf of bread after we make that move, and you're willing to understand that no-one owes you said bread, and that you will starve when you're unable to afford it.
Obviously, in a quick rejoinder I have not given a complete overview of my opinions on the matter. We obviously need delivery vehicles, electrified where we can. I'm hoping we can find something better than a two-ton box for moving a single person around to arbitrary locations. Small single-person electric vehicles, like an enclosed quad-bike, for example, seem more proportionate.
None of this can be done immediately, but it can be phased-in over a sensible amount of time. Shame we didn't start 30 years ago.
The vaccine improved outcomes but did not immunize you from getting the disease. Plenty of evidence supports this
As others have said, you need to adjust your tone and stop making accusations because the HN community does not like what you say. If you don't again, I will reach out to dang so he can take a look and take appropriate action. Has this happened to you recently and the reason you have a fresh account with strong opinions about the bias of HN?
To the level of destruction they cause the environment, health, and the contribution oil has in starting wars? Honestly, I don't know, but I think it's pretty unlikely to be even close to enough. And those taxes need to be spent on direct mitigation, not just on maintaining infrastructure for cars.
