new | show | ask | jobs Github

danielheath 7 months ago

This is what tariffs do well. When you tax a local manufacturer, you impose an equal tariff on imports.

▲

seventhtiger 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

That only makes it fair within your country, but it doesn't remove the self-crippling effects.

▲

david-gpu 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

That is why international agreements like the Montreal Protocol are so important.

▲

revscat 7 months ago | parent [-]

That was 40 years ago. In the interim capitalism has won and democracy is failing. Agreements like Montreal will never happen again, at least not in our lifetimes.

Look no further than the failure of the Paris Agreement and the ascent of authoritarianism worldwide. No one cares about environmental agreements, certainly not those in the rarified airs of billionaires, oligarchs, and other captains 9f industry.

▲

david-gpu 7 months ago | parent [-]

> Agreements like Montreal will never happen again

They happen all the time. Just look at how the European Union operates on a day-to-day basis.

This and the Montreal Protocol wasn't achieved with a self-defeating attitude, though.

	▲	antisthenes 7 months ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Montreal Protocol is Global. EU Agreements are EU-Only, and Europe is only a small part of the World, comparatively, and almost irrelevant manufacturing wise, compared to China/India/SE Asia/USA combined. If we're talking about Global climate or pollution impact, the EU alone agreeing won't cut it.
	▲	maeil 7 months ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> This and the Montreal Protocol wasn't achieved with a self-defeating attitude, though. What's clear is that the attitudes of those of us in favour of such measures has only achieved the opposite is the last decade, as the user you're replying to has rightfully pointed out. Optimism has gotten us nowhere.

▲

maeil 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

They're not self-crippling, that's the whole point of internalizing negative externalities.

▲

XorNot 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

...and then the price is added to the price of tyres. Like, where do you think the money is going to go? People can't easily substitute their car use, and there's nothing out there replacing rubber that's road legal, so all you're doing is just adding a tax to car use.

You could do this just as easily with gas taxes, registration fees or any other system.

▲

danielheath 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

> People can't easily substitute their car use... so all you're doing is just adding a tax to car use.

So long as you don't have to pay the actual costs associated with your car use, why would you _want_ to find an alternative?

> You could do this just as easily with gas taxes, registration fees or any other system.

Registration fees tax ownership of a car, not use. IMO that's... not great; if you want to own a car you rarely drive, why should you pay for everyone else's pollution?

Gas taxes could be a fair way to target CO2 emissions, but (given heavy EVs don't pay them) are a poor way to target tyre particulate pollution.

As a response to particulate pollution specifically, a tyre tax is quite closely targeted (although possibly ill-advised for other reasons, as I mentioned in my comment).

▲

Spooky23 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well the political party going into power believes they have a mandate to go back in time to when things were great.

Right now that means protective tariffs are a fashionable “something” to do.

▲

CalRobert 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Is taxing car use bad?

▲

XorNot 7 months ago | parent [-]

Ask your poorer constituents.

I work from home and get paid an enormous salary. I literally do not care. But (1) in turn I make decisions which are purely convenience based because of that disposable income and (2) I'm just one vote.

The message you'll be selling to everyone else is: "hey, that multi-thousand dollar vehicle you use for getting to work because there's no public transport and your job requires you on-site? Pay more money to have it."

Or did the US not just have an entire election apparently determined by the price of eggs and the cost of living?

▲

CalRobert 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

I can’t really afford a car and take the train to work. It is paid for in part by high taxes on personal vehicles.

▲

maeil 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

As has been mentioned dozens of times in these comments, do it by car weight. Then poorer constituents do have a choice.

	▲	XorNot 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		You are simply ignoring that there are generally economic thresholds before the best answer is to do something different, and excises and other fees simply modify costs but don't change the overall picture. People with more disposable income have much more ability to make long term, efficient economic choices by forgoing short term gains or even taking losses. It's similar to subsidizing roof top solar panels: there's a not unreasonable argument that this is just a hand out to the fairly wealthy who own houses, when we could more efficiently use that money in a government program to build industrial scale solar which benefits everyone through net lower emissions/prices.