Comment by arb-spreads | Hacker News Reader

Comment by arb-spreads | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This WSJ analysis is quite good - an EV has about half the carbon emissions relative to a comparable car after 200k miles. [https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electric-cars-really-better...] Naturally, an EV that is much more massive than a regular car will have more emissions, use more materials to manufacture, and tear up roads quicker. Ironically, there are tax incentives towards purchasing large vehicles which destroy roads quicker.

Even if all vehicles were electric, overall emissions wouldn't budge much. [https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector] >80% of global emissions are from fossil fuels, mainly oil, coal, and gas. [https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix] Electric vehicles require more materials to produce and require significant grid infrastructure, which is mainly powered by fossil fuels.

A carbon tax is one of the only realistic policies that could help lower carbon. There has been minimal progress in developed countries, and even less in developing ones. Sweden has the highest carbon tax at nearly 150/ton, and 1/3rd the emissions per person relative to the United States. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/483590/prices-of-impleme....] Switzerland is similar. [https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...]

Isn't Sweden much more compact than the U.S.? Are the countries really comparable at all in size, density, standard of living and many other factors?

I visited Sweden in high school on a student exchange, many years ago, and almost no one had a car. Everyone walked and it was a tiny town. Meals were very simple - bread, cheese and little to no meat. The family I stayed with and the town in general was quite poor and lived a simple life (with lots of drugs & alcohol). Of course things could of changed dramatically since then.

I'm curious how does the carbon tax not just inflate prices across the board?

Sweden has similar density to the US. Both countries have >80% of the population living in urban areas. Same goes for standard of living, with slightly lower GDP in Sweden and slightly higher quality of life.

Higher prices are one of the best ways to reduce consumption. Imagine of clothes were suddenly taxed at 100% - people would presumably purchase less clothing.

I mean I am sure the poor will suffer a lot more than the rich with climate change but to force it with a tax seems kind of twisted in a way.

Yes - a classic public goods problem. Lots of global inequities with minimal interest in solving. The average standard of living is substantially lower than developed countries, and global resource expenditure would skyrocket if parity occurred.

Inequity is inevitable. But that doesn't mean we should create tax policy to exacerbate it further. You really didn't say whether the carbon tax was effective in Sweden either. You just said they had lower emissions than the U.S. But that was probably true before the tax as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com