I’m against a ban. That sort of pollution is an externality and we could price it in.

The externalities are all the costs of medical problems and deaths due to pollution, as well as reduced property values due to polluted areas being less desirable. For the former I’d say a ban is appropriate, unless you’re suggesting to somehow literally clean the polluted air and pay for it with a gas automobile tax.

▲

Graziano_M 2 days ago | parent [-]

I mean even campfires and smoking in public have negative externalities which cause cancer. The marginal cost of each is tiny and probably hard to price, but it has a price. Adding this price would slightly offset the cost but more importantly act as a disincentive for buying a polluting vehicle.

	▲	tshaddox 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Smoking in public is widely banned. Campfires in populated areas are usually limited to very specific recreational areas. Home wood fires in populated areas are often banned and should be as long as there are reasonable alternatives.

▲

KingMob 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Based on the long history of trying to price in externalities, bans are probably more effective. Just look at how many games are played with carbon "credits", and how little real impact they've had.

	▲	tim333 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		On the other hand China didn't ban petrol but has heavy incentives for electric and is now at about 50% EVs, similarly Norway is at about 90%. Not exactly pricing the externalities but it kind of works. Like in China I think if you want a vehicle you need a permit and can get one straight away for EVs but have to wait 8 years for petrol or something like that.
	▲	loeg 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Just look at how many games are played with carbon "credits", and how little real impact they've had. Credits are indeed a scam but they are not a mandatory component of a carbon externality tax.

▲

KennyBlanken 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, because that's worked so well in other sectors.

You know how Tesla makes a fuckton of money? Selling their carbon credits to industry so they can pollute. So all the pollution reduction caused by people driving Teslas enables industry to pollute instead of controlling their emissions, reducing energy waste, decarbonizing, etc.

	▲	mhb 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Isn't that exactly how carbon credits are supposed to work?

▲

linotype 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Then we go to price it in people will say it’s anti-free market.