If that was true, it would be implemented quickly if carbon emissions weren’t free.
(I’m not a rabid greenie but it still boggles my mind that we let companies dump shit in the air for free.)
(I’m not a rabid greenie but it still boggles my mind that we let companies dump shit in the air for free.)
In California, 41% of carbon emissions are from transportation, the largest single source.
(IMHO we need to also legalize car-free living in addition to just a carbon tax; it's not much use to tax emissions unless we allow mixed use density and transit, and most cities do not allow that to be built anywhere. )
Parts of San Francisco predate the car, so I assume density is high enough to support car free living.
Consider the most basic of trips; you want to go from Walmart to a Target located across the street in a suburban shopping area. Where land values are low (per sq ft), the cheapest way to satisfy parking requirements is to build flat parking lots rather than structured multilevel parking. As a result, a walk across the street requires going from the front door, across a massive parking lot, then crossing a large, high-speed arterial suburban road where a suitable crosswalk may not be close by, and then crossing the Target parking lot to get to the front door. Quite the schlep through an environment that is at best unfriendly to pedestrians and at worst unsafe.
In high land value areas this is less of a problem, because the parking lots are in small-footprint garages or located underneath buildings. But most of America does not live in high land value areas, and even the most basic of trips are only practical or safe in a motor vehicle.
That suggests to me that it's currently not legal, and as I don't know where they live, there could be a law applying to this.
> allow mixed use density and transit, and most cities do not allow that to be built anywhere.
It is illegal to build for car-free living in the vast majority of our land. So much is that in some of the places where it exists today, it would be illegal to build now because the building styles were made illegal over the last century.
Car dependency is built into our laws and our built infrastructure, and that codified life style does not fit the desires of future generations, not their environmental needs.
It also isn't at all obvious that any given company is doing more damage with the stuff they dump into the air than the positive benefits they create by burning fossil fuels, which is why there isn't more support for charging for carbon emissions.
China is in a much better position to deal with the impacts of climate change after being responsible for ~25% of last years emissions than it would be if it had tried to industrialise using solar panels.
Fossil fuels have positive and negative externalities. Just taxing the negatives and ignoring the positives is not a rational approach.
The positives take care of themselves. The negatives are what need corrective action.
Logically speaking it would be subsidise the positives, but practically it is easiest to just let the negative externalities run and enjoy the positives, if the positives outweigh the negatives.
And from your vehicle(s), and from your yard equipment, and from your fireplace, and probably from your heating system, and maybe from your kitchen, and maybe from your clothes dryer, and so on. And don't even get me started on things like outdoor grills, which could be considered major polluters (along with fireplaces and such). Heaven help us if the EPA ever decides to crack down on this stuff, especially enforcing PM 2.5 restrictions, because this could potentially have a major impact on us at home.
No comment on PM 2.5 restrictions, entirely different topic.
Gasoline prices are headed down to below $2 a gallon in some parts of the country right now, but from what I understand California prices are going to stay at least twice that, and might even go higher. So we'll have to see what effect that has on demand there, if any.
> No comment on PM 2.5 restrictions, entirely different topic.
Carbon emissions are carbon emissions; it's not just all about CO2. PM 2.5 carbon particles and visible soot and such will likely eventually oxidize to CO2 anyway, though. And a lot of it oxidizes almost as soon as it's emitted, given its high temperature and its exposure to fresh supply of oxygen.
It would make some difference in use, in the medium to long term. It would make sure nobody moves from other carbon emission sources to gasoline to save money. And most importantly, you could use 50 cents a gallon to capture a lot of carbon.
> eventually oxidize to CO2
Let me rephrase then. Those particles, treated purely as a carbon source, are pretty negligible. Any restrictions that matter would be based on non-CO2 effects.
As to the PM 2.5 thing, like I said a lot of that gets oxidized to CO2 anyway, which adds up over time. Lately the EPA has been making a lot of noises about regulating this stuff, except that it turns out that much of it comes from places like our own kitchens. And nobody really wants the EPA involved with that part of it, hence the efforts to reign them in somewhat. But of course any talk of potentially restraining the EPA here is personified as "evil" in the press.