A post EV era

[DChemTech]

Here in the UK, we already have a "climate levy". We pay Vehicle Excise Duty (known as "car tax" by Joe Public). That VED is based on the vehicle's emissions. Mine cost me over £600/year. An EV would be £0. Then there is the fuel duty I pay with every litre bought.

We also have a new car "tax" that is based on emissions. An EV is £0 but mine (if it was new today) would be £2365 for the first year and then £165/year. There's also an "envy tax" (as it's sometimes known) which is on all non-EVs over £40,000 list price. That's £520/ year for the first 5 years just because you can afford a nice car (£40,000 isn't exactly over the top for a nice car these days, is it?)

So if you buy a new decent-level SUV in the UK today - you could be paying nearly £5000 just for emissions in the worst case, before any fuel duty which, of course, also hits the higher emitters because they simply use more fuel.

And with all of that, SUVs are still popular choices in the UK, albeit people are likely choosing more fuel efficient ones and or hybrids. Obviously, hybrids give much better emissions returns and so the emissions taxes are much lower. That's a good thing, but I think it's driven more by the likes of the EU requiring fleet-wide lower emissions than it is driven by customers.

True, there are lots of things already, and that's good. But it's still quite sector and location specific, and in many cases taxes that do apply to more polluting options are used for general tax income, leading to the aforementioned dependencies on them. And that is a problem; a country should not depend for their basic infrastructure on a tax that is meant to dissuade something.

Anyhow, we're meandering quite far from Andres' original point, why put a price on it at all .

[Greg Locock]

The problem with saying you can't put a dollar value on it is that you are left with emotive hand waving, and of course you no longer have a way of deciding which is the best approach. Real engineers use CBA for safety problems, we don't just build 5* car, we accept that 3* is a viable option. If you built aircraft to best possible practice only Bill Gates and Al Gore could afford to fly.

[vorticism]

by the same 'principle' .....
as the industrial revolution was GB etc largely exporting manufactured goods that industrialised the recipient countries
why should GB etc be held responsible for the current level of atmospheric CO2 ?

Everyone is responsible.

Not everyone; a relative few. You are preaching the bankers' gospel of externalities as it relates to a presumed inevitable industrializing of the entire planet. No one in Western nations voted for globalization--it wasn't up for discussion and wasn't up for a vote. It was achieved via lobbying, influence, and deception, not by democracy; ultimately it was an act of social curation by financier and baron classes. No rational business owner nor rational worker, nor any leader with an ounce of care for their people, wanted to compete against foreign labor products that were produced by workers who were paid 1/10 or less of domestic labor rates. Obviously this would make competition impossible. As we know, financial power prevailed and the non-Western world was industrialized regardless of Western citizen's sentiments and regardless of the wishes of non-industrialized peoples.

Why then would the natives of the West, majority lower and middle class and not involved in international finance policy nor even domestic finance policy, be held responsible for the industrializing of south Asia, east Asia, South America, and Africa? Again, if it had ever been up for a vote, obviously no one would have voted to end their own livelihoods. To say everyone needs to tighten their belts and submit to more loss of agency... Some would call this victim blaming.

At the root of your line of thinking lies an assumption: that every non-Western culture wanted or needed to live a Western lifestyle, which is to say, you are arguing for imperialism. By the same coin, it assumes that the citizens of Western nations wanted to de-industrialize; yet it was simply capital flight.

[Just_a_fan]

by the same 'principle' .....
as the industrial revolution was GB etc largely exporting manufactured goods that industrialised the recipient countries
why should GB etc be held responsible for the current level of atmospheric CO2 ?

Everyone is responsible.

Not everyone; a relative few. You are preaching the bankers' gospel of externalities as it relates to a presumed inevitable industrializing of the entire planet. No one in Western nations voted for globalization--it wasn't up for discussion and wasn't up for a vote. It was achieved via lobbying, influence, and deception, not by democracy; ultimately it was an act of social curation by financier and baron classes. No rational business owner nor rational worker, nor any leader with an ounce of care for their people, wanted to compete against foreign labor products that were produced by workers who were paid 1/10 or less of domestic labor rates. Obviously this would make competition impossible. As we know, financial power prevailed and the non-Western world was industrialized regardless of Western citizen's sentiments and regardless of the wishes of non-industrialized peoples.

Why then would the natives of the West, majority lower and middle class and not involved in international finance policy nor even domestic finance policy, be held responsible for the industrializing of south Asia, east Asia, South America, and Africa? Again, if it had ever been up for a vote, obviously no one would have voted to end their own livelihoods. To say everyone needs to tighten their belts and submit to more loss of agency... Some would call this victim blaming.

At the root of your line of thinking lies an assumption: that every non-Western culture wanted or needed to live a Western lifestyle, which is to say, you are arguing for imperialism. By the same coin, it assumes that the citizens of Western nations wanted to de-industrialize; yet it was simply capital flight.

So to summarise your position as I understand it from the above: "it's not my problem so I shouldn't have to do anything to solve it". Which is fine, but it will be your problem if you are affected by increasingly damaging weather events, for example. You'll be wanting solutions then, I'm sure.

[vorticism]

Everyone is responsible.

Not everyone; a relative few. You are preaching the bankers' gospel of externalities as it relates to a presumed inevitable industrializing of the entire planet. No one in Western nations voted for globalization--it wasn't up for discussion and wasn't up for a vote. It was achieved via lobbying, influence, and deception, not by democracy; ultimately it was an act of social curation by financier and baron classes. No rational business owner nor rational worker, nor any leader with an ounce of care for their people, wanted to compete against foreign labor products that were produced by workers who were paid 1/10 or less of domestic labor rates. Obviously this would make competition impossible. As we know, financial power prevailed and the non-Western world was industrialized regardless of Western citizen's sentiments and regardless of the wishes of non-industrialized peoples.

Why then would the natives of the West, majority lower and middle class and not involved in international finance policy nor even domestic finance policy, be held responsible for the industrializing of south Asia, east Asia, South America, and Africa? Again, if it had ever been up for a vote, obviously no one would have voted to end their own livelihoods. To say everyone needs to tighten their belts and submit to more loss of agency... Some would call this victim blaming.

At the root of your line of thinking lies an assumption: that every non-Western culture wanted or needed to live a Western lifestyle, which is to say, you are arguing for imperialism. By the same coin, it assumes that the citizens of Western nations wanted to de-industrialize; yet it was simply capital flight.

So to summarise your position as I understand it from the above: "it's not my problem so I shouldn't have to do anything to solve it". Which is fine, but it will be your problem if you are affected by increasingly damaging weather events, for example. You'll be wanting solutions then, I'm sure.

That would be a disingenuous summary. I do not argue for carelessness nor indifference nor callousness; quite the opposite. The best measures of the sub-10% global ethno-cultural strata know as the West will amount to nothing if the other 90% of global population perform half measures. Which many are presently tolerated to do. And this is all to meet a singular metric of one measured atmospheric compound. And again: why is the non-Western world industrialized in the first place? It was not out of a consensus effort by a unified Western voice. It was capital flight. Yet you seem to be arguing that everyone in the West, from pauper to plutocrat, is to blame for the carbon emissions of south and east Asia.

[johnny comelately]

Not everyone; a relative few. You are preaching the bankers' gospel of externalities as it relates to a presumed inevitable industrializing of the entire planet. No one in Western nations voted for globalization--it wasn't up for discussion and wasn't up for a vote. It was achieved via lobbying, influence, and deception, not by democracy; ultimately it was an act of social curation by financier and baron classes. No rational business owner nor rational worker, nor any leader with an ounce of care for their people, wanted to compete against foreign labor products that were produced by workers who were paid 1/10 or less of domestic labor rates. Obviously this would make competition impossible. As we know, financial power prevailed and the non-Western world was industrialized regardless of Western citizen's sentiments and regardless of the wishes of non-industrialized peoples.

Why then would the natives of the West, majority lower and middle class and not involved in international finance policy nor even domestic finance policy, be held responsible for the industrializing of south Asia, east Asia, South America, and Africa? Again, if it had ever been up for a vote, obviously no one would have voted to end their own livelihoods. To say everyone needs to tighten their belts and submit to more loss of agency... Some would call this victim blaming.

At the root of your line of thinking lies an assumption: that every non-Western culture wanted or needed to live a Western lifestyle, which is to say, you are arguing for imperialism. By the same coin, it assumes that the citizens of Western nations wanted to de-industrialize; yet it was simply capital flight.

So to summarise your position as I understand it from the above: "it's not my problem so I shouldn't have to do anything to solve it". Which is fine, but it will be your problem if you are affected by increasingly damaging weather events, for example. You'll be wanting solutions then, I'm sure.

That would be a disingenuous summary. I do not argue for carelessness nor indifference nor callousness; quite the opposite. The best measures of the sub-10% global ethno-cultural strata know as the West will amount to nothing if the other 90% of global population perform half measures. Which many are presently tolerated to do. And this is all to meet a singular metric of one measured atmospheric compound. And again: why is the non-Western world industrialized in the first place? It was not out of a consensus effort by a unified Western voice. It was capital flight. Yet you seem to be arguing that everyone in the West, from pauper to plutocrat, is to blame for the carbon emissions of south and east Asia.

IMHO,It is a mistake to split the factors into East and West, this is a story about human nature if solutions are to be found.
History, the record of human nature, is almost immaterial to that solution.
And it would be wise to keep both left wings, no matter how correct a view they hold, and right wings firmly folded.

[Just_a_fan]

Yet you seem to be arguing that everyone in the West, from pauper to plutocrat, is to blame for the carbon emissions of south and east Asia.

That the things that we choose to buy, and that we want to buy as cheaply as possible in most cases (except mobile phones, strangely, where the more expensive the better for some), come from Asia etc., means that we are complicit in any bad things that result from those purchasing decisions.

But the point I was making some posts ago is that if we wish the world's population to head in a certain direction with regards to emissions reductions, the rich countries - the ones with high per capita emissions, must lead the way. If everyone in India decides that the "US way" is OK, and India goes from 1.6t / head to 17t / head, we will see worldwide emissions rocket. India going from 2.5billion tonnes to 25billion tonnes - that's 5 times what the US emits now - is not a good thing, is it? If we want to ask them not to go down that road, we need to lead by example. Indians (and others) aren't going to sit there and say "ah, ok, you guys carry on with your high lifestyles and we'll carry on in squalor on your behalf".

[Andres125sx]

if we wish the world's population to head in a certain direction with regards to emissions reductions, the rich countries - the ones with high per capita emissions, must lead the way.

Exactly

We can´t ask third world to take a different way while we keep on that same way.

[Andres125sx]

Stablishing prices for pollution leads to assume if you pay for it, it´s ok, when it clearly is not. Actually it´s an extremelly anthropocentrist view. Humans paying taxes to humans will solve the problem of planet pollution, climate change, deforestation, etc.? Obviously not, it´s some sort of self-cheating for our own peace of mind

Imagine a family feeding from a big pot. Imagine they stablish a rule, if some member of the family put a drop of hemlock into the pot, it´s ok while he pays a fine for it. The whole family will dye sooner or later when they´re all poisoned. What use will have the money collected from fines? None, they´re dead.

This is the same, humans paying money to humans will never solve the problem. Actually it will increase it even further, as people tend to assume if they pay for something, then it´s ok and they have the right to continue, because they´re paying for it

IMHO that´s just self-cheating, and feeding the problem even more, the opposite to what we should be doing at this point

[Spoutnik]

Stablishing prices for pollution leads to assume if you pay for it, it´s ok, when it clearly is not. Actually it´s an extremelly anthropocentrist view. Humans paying taxes to humans will solve the problem of planet pollution, climate change, deforestation, etc.? Obviously not, it´s some sort of self-cheating for our own peace of mind

Imagine a family feeding from a big pot. Imagine they stablish a rule, if some member of the family put a drop of hemlock into the pot, it´s ok while he pays a fine for it. The whole family will dye sooner or later when they´re all poisoned. What use will have the money collected from fines? None, they´re dead.

This is the same, humans paying money to humans will never solve the problem. Actually it will increase it even further, as people tend to assume if they pay for something, then it´s ok and they have the right to continue, because they´re paying for it

IMHO that´s just self-cheating, and feeding the problem even more, the opposite to what we should be doing at this point

You are absolutely right, I agree with you. I studied economics and I was bored at the end by the idea of "price mechanism" solving all the issues in the society. It's not possible. And sometimes it just doesn't I will give two examples I know quite well.
1/ The european carbon emission market : Since his creation prices were very volatile and the regulator put too much "rights" on the market so price went too low and companies were just "savings" their rights for worse time. A market isn't a self creation the supply/demand is sometimes very political
2/ I'm french, and with the increase of the "carbon tax" we had the well know "yellow jackets". You cannot just increase prices and hope for changes, especially when the demand is inelastic as it's the case with commodities.
The governements have to drawn a "desirable future" with alternatives to individual cars with ICE + "suburb-isation" (which force you to cover a lot of distance everyday) : it's the main reason behind the yellow jackets movement, it's not because Macron is a despot.

[vorticism]

Yet you seem to be arguing that everyone in the West, from pauper to plutocrat, is to blame for the carbon emissions of south and east Asia.

That the things that we choose to buy, and that we want to buy as cheaply as possible in most cases (except mobile phones, strangely, where the more expensive the better for some), come from Asia etc., means that we are complicit in any bad things that result from those purchasing decisions.

But the point I was making some posts ago is that if we wish the world's population to head in a certain direction with regards to emissions reductions, the rich countries - the ones with high per capita emissions, must lead the way. If everyone in India decides that the "US way" is OK, and India goes from 1.6t / head to 17t / head, we will see worldwide emissions rocket. India going from 2.5billion tonnes to 25billion tonnes - that's 5 times what the US emits now - is not a good thing, is it? If we want to ask them not to go down that road, we need to lead by example. Indians (and others) aren't going to sit there and say "ah, ok, you guys carry on with your high lifestyles and we'll carry on in squalor on your behalf".

You are framing yourself and/or the West as some sort of vanguard of environmentalism or moral superiority which will imprint upon the, as you presumably denote them, poorer nations (those who are not 'rich countries'). However, the non-Western world does not look up to the West as a father figure, much as you and Andres125 may wish them to. They look at the West as akin to an equal, or as competition, or as inferior, or something to consume and exploit; not something to willing integrate into at the loss of themselves.

The framing of poverty in India as somehow correlated to the 'high lifestyles' in the West makes little sense in the context of this arguement. Our homeless and indigent may take issue with the suburbanites and stock brokers ignoring their inclusion in the West's richness quotient. Are you saying the West must become more decrepit (away from 'high lifestyles') because other cultures cannot solve poverty? Or is this as well the fault of the poor and middle classes of the West?

You pine for justice yet ultimately seek some kind of diffusion of justice upon the masses whom had nothing to do with the infraction. This is, as mentioned before, advocating for externalities. Why would you do that? Are you an investment banker? If you want justice for the carbon emissions of recently industrialized nations, then identify who moved industry out of the West. Identify the bankers and barons who built up the industry and sweatshops in those nations who are now carbon threats. Those are your culprits, not the underclasses of the West who played no role in economic policy nor capital allocation, who obviously would not have voted for the gutting of their own domestic industries. Identify the culprits, then apply the justice: a carbon tax, a climate justice factor, or whatever, via taxation, fines, imprisonment, or death penalty. If we hold individuals with names responsible, the precision of and scope of consequences will begin to become more clear. How serious are we really about this so called climate justice?

I appreciate this line of discussion regardless because this is the 'technical' side of policy decisions. People forget that society is a machine which has its engineers.

[gruntguru]

. . . . I do think that the price of environmental impact should be included in the price of the equipment, but no issue with it being used. . .

Agree with this bit. Should also apply to hypercars - no need to regulate beyond this. If you can afford to - pay whatever it costs to reverse the damage done by your indulgence then go ahead and do it.

Seriously guys? You continue using money as the only reference? Anyone with a big enough account can do whatever he/she wants?
Then...
How do we value or pay an atmosphere full of GHG?
How do we value or pay an increase of 2ºC of seas?
How do we value or pay destroying forests?
How do we value or pay a hole in the ozone layer?
I´m a capitalist, but not an extremist who consider everything has a price, including lives and the planet like you are suggesting . There are things which don´t have a price and it does not matter how many zeros are put in the paycheck, no fortune can replace ozone, the atmosphere or a balanced climate or environment.

Dollars are the best way we have of keeping score. Read my post again. "If you can afford to - pay whatever it costs to reverse the damage done by your indulgence then go ahead and do it."

There are without question, ways of measuring CO2 emission, ways of reducing CO2 emission and measuring the cost of doing so.

[johnny comelately]

well worth the read re lithium
https://www.dw.com/en/digging-in-the-di ... a-62744481
"Three large mining projects based in California's "Lithium Valley" aim to recover lithium with minimal environmental impacts. They have the potential to simplify the global lithium supply chain."

[Andres125sx]

You are framing yourself and/or the West as some sort of vanguard of environmentalism or moral superiority which will imprint upon the, as you presumably denote them, poorer nations (those who are not 'rich countries'). However, the non-Western world does not look up to the West as a father figure, much as you and Andres125 may wish them to. They look at the West as akin to an equal, or as competition, or as inferior, or something to consume and exploit; not something to willing integrate into at the loss of themselves.

Who said that? Not me, period. Leading by example does not mean you feel superior at all mate, that´s a weird conclussion sincerely

Leading by example only means that you think there must be some changes, and to prove your point you start those changes yourself. Otherwise you´d be a hypocritical and barefaced asking others to do things you can´t do yourself.

Leading by example only means you´re conviced of your own ideas and prove it with facts, doing exactly what you claim, nothing more, nothing less.

You pine for justice yet ultimately seek some kind of diffusion of justice upon the masses whom had nothing to do with the infraction. This is, as mentioned before, advocating for externalities. Why would you do that? Are you an investment banker? If you want justice for the carbon emissions of recently industrialized nations, then identify who moved industry out of the West. Identify the bankers and barons who built up the industry and sweatshops in those nations who are now carbon threats. Those are your culprits, not the underclasses of the West who played no role in economic policy nor capital allocation, who obviously would not have voted for the gutting of their own domestic industries. Identify the culprits, then apply the justice: a carbon tax, a climate justice factor, or whatever, via taxation, fines, imprisonment, or death penalty. If we hold individuals with names responsible, the precision of and scope of consequences will begin to become more clear. How serious are we really about this so called climate justice?

I appreciate this line of discussion regardless because this is the 'technical' side of policy decisions. People forget that society is a machine which has its engineers.

Sorry to say this but this part is quite easy and immature. I´m not a banker so I´m not responsible....

Where are you from? Who did you vote in last elections? Did you ask to solve some of those problems at some point? Did you complain about your government when they didn´t do anything to stop this nosense?

Maybe we are not bankers or CEOs of petrol companies, but politicians do what people ask them to do. We like to bash them, but in the end they only do what they think will provide votes. If a vast majority of people would be asking for a massive reduction in emissions since the 80s, you can be sure it would have happened, but people, the vast majority of people at least, has always considered this as a fanatic point of view from eco-friendly nerds who don´t have a life, so they (politicians) did the same.

People has a responsibility for what our governments do, at least people from democracies like all western countries, wich is the point, we can´t dodge responsibility this easily and point fingers to politicians, if they´re responsible, we are responsible.

And this comes from someone who didn´t vote any of these nerds ever, who ask for this solutions for decades, so probably one of the few westerns who could actually dodge responsibility for western innaction, as I´ve been asking for some action for decades, but as a society, we westerns are responsible of current situation, like it or not

[Andres125sx]

. . . . I do think that the price of environmental impact should be included in the price of the equipment, but no issue with it being used. . .

Agree with this bit. Should also apply to hypercars - no need to regulate beyond this. If you can afford to - pay whatever it costs to reverse the damage done by your indulgence then go ahead and do it.

Seriously guys? You continue using money as the only reference? Anyone with a big enough account can do whatever he/she wants?
Then...
How do we value or pay an atmosphere full of GHG?
How do we value or pay an increase of 2ºC of seas?
How do we value or pay destroying forests?
How do we value or pay a hole in the ozone layer?
I´m a capitalist, but not an extremist who consider everything has a price, including lives and the planet like you are suggesting . There are things which don´t have a price and it does not matter how many zeros are put in the paycheck, no fortune can replace ozone, the atmosphere or a balanced climate or environment.

Dollars are the best way we have of keeping score. Read my post again. "If you can afford to - pay whatever it costs to reverse the damage done by your indulgence then go ahead and do it."

There are without question, ways of measuring CO2 emission, ways of reducing CO2 emission and measuring the cost of doing so.

Sorry but you continue missing the point. We need to urgently reduce emissions, wich means erradicating any emission wich is not needed, and compensating for all the rest wich are needed as they´re immense.

You comment is like a captain of a ship who is sinking and admit someone doing a hole in the ship if he can evacuate the water wich will come in through that hole... no way man, we need those two hands evacuating the water wich is already coming in, not wasting those two hands with new holes

All hands are needed for existing holes, no new holes please!