Apples and oranges. Something being driven 10k miles a year is being used for daily life activities, something being driven 100 miles is not.
Consider what job it's doing, not what arbitrary market category it fits in.
Consider what job it's doing, not what arbitrary market category it fits in.
I agree this is a thing that can be done, but I disagree it's a job that it's doing - because stating its a job usually means there is some ultimate purpose to it.
Also a more specific issue here is car manufacturing itself is like 25% of the carbon footprint of a vehicle, so regardless of use it's still doing damage.
[1] e.g. a solution may be that we take public transport, or micromobility, or relocate so we don't need to drive as far, or videoconference, or any number of other things that examine the full range of options we have to reach the goal.
Just do a gas tax (or carbon tax) and be done with it. If you are worried about some specific use cases, just give those deserving people money so they can pay their taxes with that.
No it doesn’t. That is what authoritarians do under the guise of climate change when they just want control.
Climate change demands we reduce CO2 in aggregate. It is better to tax all gas equally to force a reduction in its use and keep increasing the tax until its emissions are negligible. No exceptions, full stop.
Being faster? Being more fun? Giving you social status in your in-group?