These climate change freeloaders still driving gas cars should have to pay an extra tax

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

Gas burners, despite their behavior, are benefitting from the extra money and effort spent by EV owners and the reduction in the rate of climate change that results from those efforts. Whether they realize it or not, gas burners are saving money through reductions in extreme weather costs, insurance, AC use, and much more, thanks to renewable and more-efficient energies being generated. It makes sense that they should have to pay a tax to make up for their failure to contribute and help take care of the place we live.

But how to implement such a tax?

I've got it! What if we, say, put a tax on gasoline itself, so that every time gas burners fill up their shitty gas tanks with planet-killing fossil fuels we drag out of the ground that totally should have been left there, it costs them extra money?

Then, maybe we could use that money for something worthwhile that even EV owners could benefit from, like roads?

Now, I know it's kind of a crazy idea and it's doubtful we could get it- wait, what? That's already the completely fair, sensible system we have in place?

Well, I'll be darned.

[CrackityJones75]

1. Nope.

First show me that the tax is going to go something that helps the current situation.

Second point me to the electric vehicle that is affordable for my needs.

I need a pickup for my needs. The new F150 will start at 40k and not be available for a while and 40k is not affordable.

You want to tax the gas, you will just end up taxing every good that depends on gas to get it, make it, ship it.

If EV’s were more prevalent I might agree with you but it isn’t a reality at the moment.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

5. No, I get it, your needs are special and completely

different from everyone else's, and you shouldn't have to contribute.

[Budi]

18. Fine. Then make all roads a Toll Road. All drivers using the road pays for use.

Happy?

Its the only fair way to do it.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

75. No, it's more than fair to target gas burners

for extra money because of the unbelievable damage they're doing to our future. If they're going to try to shirk our collective responsibility, they deserve it.

[CrackityJones75]

65. No it isn't that at all.

What you are proposing will primarily hurt many lower to middle class families. I think a better option is to continue to invest in the infrastructure needed to make EV’s more prevalent

Building codes should include having the necessary electrical i garages. Highway systems need to be updated via infrastructure bills. Auto makers need to be enticed to continue ramping up ev production. When the used car market has viable EV’s (not sure how battery life effects that) then it may be more affordable for people that can’t afford a new EV to get into one. As it stands right now there simy isn’t an affordable market for most people to get into one and taxing them because of the way that the world has been built seems unfair to the working class.

Sorry. I like the idea of moving to EV’s and I certainly will try to do that with my next vehicle but I just don’t think that is the right way to go about it at the moment.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

76. I'm not really proposing it- I'm ironically pointing out the

ridiculousness of trying to charge EV owners a fee when by all rights gas burners deserve to pay more than EV owners. Gas burners are simply doing more damage.

[Deminpenn]

105. Roads and bridges are primarily supported by federal and state

gas taxes. If charging stations were as prevalent as gas stations, then EVs could be taxed when they pulled in to charge up, but that's not the case. Even if it were, there'd still be EV owners who charged their EVs at home, something not available to gasoline powered car/truck owners.

Unless EVs are using something other than roads, bridges and tunnels to travel, they need to help pay for the cost for maintenance and construction of those things as an EV puts just as much wear and tear on the roads, etc, as similar weight gas engine cars.

[CrackityJones75]

106. Then say that.

Your proposal has been ridiculously flawed as has been pointed out by many here in the thread. It would be disasterous.

Also EV’s are definitely NOT exactly eco friendly at this point. They may be at some point leaps and bounds better which is why I hope the tech grows and continues but the size of the carbon footprint and the mark left on the planet when getting the materials to make them is large. On the same level as a gas burner? Probably not. But still.

Again we are not there yet.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

9. Also, for those arguing affordability, you can get a Chevy Bolt for like $25K

and that is an outstanding car, by the way.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

13. Not to mention all the money you save not paying for gas

...and the gas tax. Starts to make some financial sense, which is what we want.

[StarfishSaver]

16. That may be affordable to you

But there are a whole lot of people in this country who couldn't afford anything even close to that for a car.

[multigraincracker]

21. Sure sounds like a tax on the poor.

A new car for some is more like $2,500.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

78. What, like a cigarette tax?

We've got no problem with that, do we, since it's burning poisons into our air and hurting us all? Gasoline, because of volume burned, is arguably hurting us a helluva lot more than tobacco.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

77. Then buy a used one. You're ignoring the larger point that

many EVs don't actually cost initially any more than a gas-burning car, and can have an even lower cost of ownership over the years.

[jimfields33]

20. 25,000 is affordable? I would say not in the real world it's not.

[MineralMan]

25. Exactly, and for those with low credit scores,

they're either impossible to finance or carry a very high interest rate on a car loan.

And who has low credit scores? Why people with low incomes, so they're doubly screwed.

[jimfields33]

28. Yep. I'm still stunned that 25,000 is affordable.

Things sure have changed that I missed. Lol.

[MineralMan]

38. Well, we drive a KIA Soul, one of the least expensive new

cars you can find. We've had two of them now, and they're nice little cars.

They cost around $20K now, in their base model trim.

You can lease them pretty cheaply, too, but you need a good or excellent credit score to get those low lease rates.

Low-income folks have a real problem when it comes to cars. They absolutely must have one, but they can only afford older used cars, and can't afford to fix them when they break, which they do with alarming frequency.

EVs are great! They are, but they are simply beyond affordability for most people. People who own them often tend to look down on people who can't afford one, and feel superior in yet one more way than the people who are struggling to make ends meet. It's not a good look for such people, it seems to me. Classism.

[StarfishSaver]

48. It's especially not a good look on a progressive discussion board

[MineralMan]

52. Well, some "progressives" are progressive in theory, but not so much

in practice. Some are "progressive" when it comes to the environment, as long as they can afford to buy an EV and solar power systems for their homes. If they can do that, though, it's difficult for them to identify with people who are struggling just to make ends meet. There are a lot of single-issue progressives out there. It's good to have an issue you feel strongly about, but not so good if you forget all the other issues that exist.

Other people have other primary issues, but have trouble seeing a larger picture, especially about things that don't affect them directly. I'm not blaming them, but I do wish people could think beyond the narrow issues they think are the only important ones.

It's a problem. It's especially a problem when it comes to getting legislators to vote for things that cost a great deal, but don't benefit most of their constituents. Such has always been the case, really. A narrow vision often blocks people's views of the larger spectrum of problems that need to be solved.

[LiberatedUSA]

68. South Park did an episode on this very attitude.

Episode name: Smug Alert

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

84. It's like I think my exhaust don't stink.

Oh, that's right. It doesn't.




Sometimes, smugness is deserved. Particularly when it's the result of years of evaluating one's values, work, research, prioritization, and sacrifice. Environmental responsibility is something people have to MAKE important in their own lives.

Sometimes, it's the lazy people trying to avoid having to think about what their consumption is doing to our world who are wrong.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

83. And some "progressives" are just here to tell truck stories.

Ha ha!

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

82. Progressives believe in collective responsibility and everyone doing their part

These jealousy-driven attacks on EV and solar owners are incredibly misguided and among the farthest things from progressive I can think of. They are manipations put out thee by utility and oil companies and they are cynical as hell, attempting to use class arguments to undermine our environmental progress. Unbelievable that some so-called "progressives" have bought into them.

If you want to attack the rich, that's well deserved- but you do that by increasing income taxes, estate, and capital gains taxes.

What you DON'T do is attack the financial incentives that we've put in place- let alone the natural advantages, like not having to pay gas tax- to try to leverage into our society more environmentally-responsible energy and transportation resources. Those new energies have a hard enough time overcoming the inertia of stupid thinking and human laziness as it is.

[StarfishSaver]

103. Progressives don't assume everyone wants to be them and those who haven't acquired what they have

are lazy or jealous - or, as you refer to them: "freeloaders."

Here's a clue - no one here is "attacking the rich" and I doubt anyone is the least bit jealous of you. Most of us probably have an altogether different impression, but it's surely not the one you're hoping to provoke.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

81. Do you think poor people not yet always being able to afford EVs

means we should disincentivize EV ownership by charging extra registration fees?

[MineralMan]

108. If they can't afford an EV, they'll drive an ICE vehicle

and pay taxes on the fuel they burn. EVs also wear on highways. They need to pay to maintain roads, as well.

It's really simple. EVs are no less hard on the roads than ICE vehicles. Plus, as more of them are on the roads, there will be less money from fuel taxes if they don't help pay their own way.

Emissions are only part of the impact vehicles have on infrastructure and the environment. Mining lithium for those batteries is not at all environmental friendly. That's why we don't mine lithium in the United States, but relegate such mining to other nations that don't have strict environmental laws for mining operations.

Plus most charging stations are providing electricity generated by burning fossil fuel. EVs are good. They are not the total answer, however. Not even close.

Finally, the tires on EVs are made from petroleum products.

[Marrah_Goodman]

111. And even if we could afford a lease..

Paying for the full coverage insurance would make it a no go.

[MineralMan]

113. Absolutely. I forgot to mention that cost.

Car insurance is very expensive, and going higher with increasing new car prices.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

80. No. You can as obtuse as you like for rationalization purposes

but the initial cost similarity with ICE's, and sometimes lower overall cost of ownership, remains.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

37. That's the same price as or less than most other new cars.

What, do you want EVs to be LESS expensive than new cars? In addition to all the money you save on gas and maintenance?

[jimfields33]

55. I don't spend 25,000 on cars

My last car a Toyota I spent 14,000 on a 2011 Toyota Yaris with 11 miles on it. I’ll keep it til it dies. My last car I bought in 1987. Ive had two cars so far in 34 years of driving life.

[nykym]

67. You still have to maintain an EV

and being a a new technology and electrical so the repairs are going to cost you.
Plus every time you need to recharge you will be paying the electric company that burns fossil fuel to generate electricity.
It's a vicious cycle that no one talks about.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

85. The maintenance for the first several years is rotating tires.

That's it.

And the warranties on EVs are often much stronger than ICE's, precisely because they're less-tested.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

79. Then buy a used one. The point is many are no more expensive than other cars

and you probably aren't considering the possibility of a lower cost of ownership overall, either.

[Merlot]

35. I'd love to be driving an EV, but my gas burning car is paid for

It's unrealistic and somewhat patronizing to suggest that everyone should just go buy a $25K car because it's like affordable.

Also, infrastructure is not there yet for EV cars of apartment dwellers.

[RegularJam]

58. And right here it is.

I thought you were transparent in the op. Didn't think you would go all the way.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

87. I expect everyone to acknowledge and act on their responsibility

to take good care of our world, as best as they can.

I'm fully aware we all have limitations in what we can do to take care of the planet. But what I'm seeing in this thread and others, and in the idea of trying to charge extra fees to EV owners, is an utter shamelessness and outright jealousy coming from people who largely haven't even done that minimum they conceivably could to try turn our climate change around. They've given up entirely and, feeling powerless and hating being reminded of reality, they've decided they're going to use their poverty to shield themselves from their responsibilities to our collective society and planet.

People in that position have a helluva lot of nerve trying to lecture others to "contribute" more, even just in car registration fees.

[Marrah_Goodman]

112. So I am using my poverty as a shield????

Did you really just say that? I think you either have never been poor or have forgotten what it is like.

[Marrah_Goodman]

110. Let me know when I can buy an electric car for under 2k.

[FSogol]

2. EV! Of cousre there are still over 220 coal plants in the US so when you plug your car in,

your electric may be coal generated. That's almost 25% of the electric generated in the US.
But go ahead and feel smug! You might save the climate with you vehicle marketed to the rich and upper middle class!

(I wonder how many replies until someone tells me how clean THEIR power is)

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

7. You're wrong on two points

First, let's compare apples to apples- burning oil in ICE's vs burning it in electrical plants. The electrical plants are twice as efficient as gas cars in harvesting the energy from oil.

Secondly, many- including yours truly- who have purchased EVs generate much, all, or more electricity than they need with solar or other alternative energy. That's how many offset their transport energy use. Regardless of that, EVs are CAPABLE of using renewable, clean energy generation, where gas engines are not and never will be.

Stop kidding yourself. The environmental reasoning for switching to electric is obvious.

[FSogol]

10. "The environmental reasoning for switching to electric is obvious" - I agree when the price comes

down. Until then, why the moral superiority because you can afford a vehicle that others cannot?
Also, I pointed out coal-fired plants as generating electric, not gas-fired. Gas powered plants might be more efficient, but coal-fired ones are not. 25% Coal.

[Budi]

12. "Until then, why the moral superiority because you can afford a vehicle that others cannot?"

Thank You.
🙄

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

29. Uhh, this thread is a response to people trying to pretend

EV owners aren't "contributing." Clearly it was a good idea to remind you gas burners of your apathy and the reality of our climate situation.

[Budi]

51. ROFL... SEE ITS ALL "you gas burners " FAULT!! (you forgot to say boomers")

"Clearly it was a good idea to remind you gas burners of your apathy and the reality of our climate situation."

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

89. Yeah. Not sure if you've heard, but burning fossil fuels is a huge factor

contributing to climate change. This is known.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

88. Have you ever actually tried, or did you just write the whole thing off?

[Budi]

94. Lol. Tried what.? I've tried A LOT of things. Food, Dope, Adventure, Clothing, Music.Pets.

Can't believe you came back to ask me if I "actually tried" something.

"88. Have you ever actually tried, or did you just write the whole thing off?"

It's a little creepy.to be honest. Since I have no idea what it is I'm supposed to have tried.
I mean, it's not like we're bffs or family, ya know.

But hey, ya wanna see something absolutely freaking cool?

Here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10181523551

[StarfishSaver]

17. Thank you!

I can't even believe the comments in this thread.

[FSogol]

22. Yeah, this place can be surprising at times. n/t

[StarfishSaver]

27. It's becoming less surprising ...

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

34. Phew!! Rationalization secure!!

Wouldn't have to actually consider the reality!

[lagomorph777]

24. +1 We don't all have the option to just go out and pick up a new car.

Wouldn't that be nice though? :eyeroll:

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

32. People are talking about removing financial incentives for EVs.

And you're complaining about lack of affordability...

[Budi]

3. EV cars should be taxed for the cost of Lithium/nickel mining cleanup

Also an extra tax for the amount of Lithium mining water usage, that threatens to lower the water tables in the W/SW even further than they already are.

EV batteries don't run on petroleum but the environmental damage left behind has to be addressed & paid for.

Pick your poison & pay your tax.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

8. Then gas cars should be taxed for the precious metals in their

catalytic converters.

But, no, I'm not going to let people rationalize away their laziness and apathy with "both sides" nonsense.

[Budi]

11. Excuse me? Don't give me that LithiumEV is better bullshit either.

EV comes with its own filthy environmental waste. Selling one shiny new toxin as better than the old toxin without addressing the growing concern to the damage left behind is a great big " nothing-to-see-here, look-over-there" kind of starry eyed bunch of bs.

PAY FOR THE CLEAN-UP OR DON'T DRIVE THE CAR.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

23. Excuse YOU. Are you aware oil has to be drilled? FRACKED?

Oil ITSELF has to be transported halfway across the planet OVER and OVER before it is burned ONCE. Transport which takes what? MORE OIL!!

OH, let's not forget oil spills! Remember the Exxon Valdez? How about the Deepwater Horizon? Has that even stopped yet?

And how about the MILLIONS OF PEOPLE who have been killed in wars over oil? The trillions upon trillions of dollars that have been wasted on weapons trying to control oil supplies?

Nobody fights wars over solar panels or lithium.

You clearly haven't given this the slightest bit of thought.

[tritsofme]

4. So increase taxes on the working poor, who would be disproportionately impacted by such a policy

To subsidize EV vehicles, who are primarily owned by higher earners. Great idea...

[NH Ethylene]

6. They need to be affordable.

It's ridiculous and classist to punish people for not being able to afford an environmentally friendly car. And if they were the same price, I would prefer incentives to penalities.

[StarfishSaver]

14. Not to mention the fact

that everyone doesn't live in areas where it's easy to plug in an electric car

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

39. They aren't being punished. They're paying the same gas tax they were.

Remember, the law was already there.

The reality is EVs, as you complain about affordability, need MORE financial benefits like not paying gas tax!! — not less.

You're losing the point of your argument.

[NH Ethylene]

74. Did you forget what you said in your OP?

How would they be paying the same gas tax if it was increased?

If the EVs are to take off, they need to be available for people to purchase at the same price (or less!) as the gas cars. Plus the supportive infrastructure needs to be expanded so people can be assured of finding a recharge site when needed.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

90. When it comes to behavior, intent doesn't matter, only the effects.

Yes, I'm saying you can certainly justify punishing gas burners with extra taxes if it was necessary, but that's not what actually happened originally.

I made the OP to make the point that its ridiculous for gas burners to be making fairness arguments to support taxing the relatively few people who've spent the time and money to research and buy EVs and try to help stave off the worst of climate change. I think it's utterly shameless for people in such a position to be doing that.

[NH Ethylene]

107. Ahh, I was not aware of that EV shaming.

There are alternative ways to produce electricity, but only one way to run a gasoline engine. Perhaps the angst is better aimed toward coal-burning plants rather than EV users.

[maxsolomon]

15. Can you imagine this debate occurring in Europe?

Petrol is taxed at $2.80/gallon in Britain, more than 10x the US federal tax.

[StarfishSaver]

19. Higher gas taxes were instituted in Europe long before electric cars came into being

The taxes applied to pretty much everyone who owned a car and didn't penalize a large segment of society who could not afford new automotive technology.

[multigraincracker]

31. Plus they have cheap public transportation.

The rich always want the poor to pay all of the taxes.

[StarfishSaver]

33. True

While sneering at the poor and calling them freeloaders.

Unbelievable.

[multigraincracker]

36. Lets double the price of flying to pay for roads.

The rich are the real freeloaders.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

92. So you think people who do the RIGHT thing should be penalized.

And a technology that you're arguing is unaffordable (but objectively needs to grow in the world) should be made less affordable.

No, makes total sense.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

91. It's really something. How do the Europeans cut through the rationalization?

[RegularJam]

26. Regressive, classist and illogical positions being promoted on a "progressive" discussion board.

This should go well.

[maxsolomon]

41. Taxing petroleum is none of those.

We already have a federal gas tax. We already have state & city gas taxes. For decades. Was anyone saying those were regressive, classist and illogical 30 years ago?

We all recognize that burning fuel is killing the planet, don't we? Don't we?

One would hope a 'progressive' discussion board could handle discussing the choices ANTHROPOGENIC Climate Change will force on us.

[RegularJam]

42. It's pretty clear you didn't read the op. nt

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

47. I wrote the OP. He got it, you didn't. nt

[RegularJam]

54. No. I got it.

You were very clear.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

46. Right, this is their response to NOT punishing EV owners-

for DOING THE RIGHT THING!!

[RegularJam]

57. All caps doesn't change your classist argument.

At all.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

93. And name-calling in your attempt to dismiss inconvenient truths

doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to take care of our world for future generations.

It doesn't matter how much money a person has. They still need to acknowledge the effects of their consumption on our world and do we they can to minimize the negative impacts. Yes, even poor people can make that effort.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

45. Regressive? Don't we ALL live on this planet?

Are you saying poor people don't have a responsibility to do everything they can to reduce climate change?

[CrackityJones75]

66. Give them the options to do something!

Good Lord. In this thread you have put forth the option to buy a $25k car. That isn’t going to work for a low income worker.

[StarfishSaver]

30. Everyone can't afford to switch from gas powered cars to electric vehicles

Referring to them as "freeloaders" is out of line.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

40. So we should punish EV owners with fees and make it even less affordable?

Are you keeping track of your own argument?

[RussBLib]

50. Perhaps you would get better responses....

By not being so rude?

[RegularJam]

61. Lots of people refer to paying their fair share as punishment.

You aren't the only one.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

95. You need to start doing your fair share to reduce climate change. nt

[Midnightwalk]

63. Are you tracking?

Your op doesn’t mention punishing EV owners but you seem to throw that out randomly in responses to replies that also don’t mention punishing EV owners.

I wonder what I’ll get called for pointing that out.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

96. The actual issue being debated is charging EV owners extra fees

despite gas burners being the irresponsible ones who it's completely fair to demand more of.

[panader0]

43. Were you ever a climate change freeloader? i.e. Did you ever drive a "gas burner" and

"fill your shitty gas tank with planet killing fossil fuels we drag out of the ground etc?
Yeah I have a gas burning automobile and a truck. I drive the car about once a week and
the trunk maybe once a month.
But that's not the point. I cannot afford an electric vehicle. Period. Do they make electric trucks
that can haul a pallet of brick or a yard of sand? Cool if they do, but I couldn't afford one of those
either.
Tell you what Mr(s) self righteous -- you buy me one and I'll drive it.

[hunter]

69. Hah. I'm among the worst climate change freeloaders EVER.

When I was a wild young thing gasoline was almost free. Seriously. I was regularly making eight to ten dollars an hour and gasoline was sixty cents a gallon. I drove all over the Western U.S.A. and Northwest Mexico in my little Toyota and thought nothing of the occasional 100 mile daily commutes.

Oh, and I was an anti-nuclear activist as well, not yet comprehending the irony of burning 20 gallons of gasoline driving all by my lonesome self to and from anti-nuclear rallies...

When my wife and I met, more than thirty years ago, we were commuters each spending more than an hour on the road every working day.

By some planning and greater good fortune we were able to escape that lifestyle.

[brooklynite]

44. How am I a freeloader?

I live in a city that doesn't have private garages for each person's car where an electric charger can be installed, nor are there chargers on street or in public lots.

[Budi]

53. I think everyone could have an EV instead of paying off all students loans!!

I think that's a fair trade off.
All student loans over 20,000 would be a fair trade for EVs for everyone below a certain income.

Problem solved!

[hunter]

56. I live in a city where apartment owners are installing parking spaces with chargers...

... hoping to attract more affluent tenants.

Ordinary electricians can do that work.

Our local Wal-Mart has solar panels on its roof and charging stations in the parking lot.

There are solar panels over the parking lot of a local supermarket. It's nice to park in the shade on a hot sunny day and come back to a car that's not an oven.

These are not impossible things.

When did the U.S.A. become a "CAN'T DO!" nation?

[RegularJam]

60. One of the more important statements being made here.

"hoping to attract more affluent tenants."

[hunter]

64. So, how do we make sure everyone gets a piece of the pie?

Raising the minimum wage would be a start. So would affordable urban housing. The kind of housing ordinary working people can buy, not rent. A place they can make their own.

I know many electricians installing car chargers and solar panels are making plenty and could buy an electric or plug-in hybrid truck. And they just might, once those are more available.

You want to impress that uber-wealthy "liberal" client?

Drive up in one of these and do good work:

They'll tell their friends. More business for you.

Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work?

[StarfishSaver]

72. Indeed

[hunter]

49. We need to rebuild our cities such that most people don't need or want cars.

This planet can't support 8 billion automobile owners, not even electric automobiles.

I think we can make urban living so attractive that only a small percentage of the population would choose to live in lonely low density suburbs or accept a long commute by automobile.

[panader0]

59. Hey KSR--no answer yet on my question in post #43.

Did you or did you not ever drive a gas car?

[StarfishSaver]

73. Virtually everyone in America uses roads paid for by gas tax paying vehicle owners

even if they don't ever drive.

Anyone who doesn't think that's true should explain how their goods and services get to them without roads.

[NickB79]

70. All the posters bitching about cost ain't seen nothing yet when climate change really starts to bite

You can't afford to pay for a new EV? You "need" a truck for towing, because you "need" a boat, ATV and snowmobile? You think an extra $1/gallon for gas is unfair?

Wait until food prices are sky high from crop failures, cities are flooding and/or running out of water, forest fires are turning the sky black, electrical grids are failing, and your homeowners insurance is so high you can't afford it.

You think a gas tax is regressive?

NOTHING is more regressive than the costs we're going to pay thanks to climate change. And those aren't events way off in the future that our grandkids have to face. They're starting to happen NOW.

We're literally in the first stages of the largest mass extinction event since the end of the dinosaurs. The last time carbon was this high, sea levels were 75 FEET higher. There was no ice on Greenland, but forests instead. Alligators lived in Minnesota. We're facing the threat of a civilization-ending collapse by the end of the century, with the prospect of billions dead or migrating north as climate refugees, because vast areas of the tropics will be lethally hot. And those billions will be predominantly the poorest and least responsible for the climate collapse. Regressive.

I've long said that it would take measures most Americans would consider draconian to stop climate change, and they wouldn't do it.

This thread reinforces that hypothesis.

[Kaleva]

86. Raising the cost by $1 a gallon in the US will do nothing.

Your comment:

"I've long said that it would take measures most Americans would consider draconian to stop climate change, and they wouldn't do it.
"

Are you net zero? That's what it would take to prevent the worst of climate change from arriving. It may already be too late for that. The world, not just the US, would need immediately reduce emissions to net zero and then we'd have to develop technology's to remove the greenhouse gasses already in the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels.

I don't think there's anyone here who is willing take the draconian measures needed to become net zero.

[KentuckyStiffRipple]

97. The most real post in this thread.

Not everyone here has the strength to think about what you're saying (and most probably didn't read it).

[WarGamer]

71. anything with tires that rides on the roads wears out the roads...

[Budi]

98. +

[meadowlander]

99. It depends on where the electricity you're charging your car comes from

and also how often you drive it.

I couldn't afford a car until I was 40 and even now that I have one I only drive it on weekends to places it's too big of a pain in the ass to take the bus to. I've had it five years now and put less than 10Ks on it. I work at home full time and live in a transit-oriented neighbourhood where I can walk to the grocery store and take a 10 minute bus ride downtown.

So yes, I still own a gas burning car and no, I can't replace it with an electric vehicle - even a used or "affordable" one.

But I'll also bet you any money you like that I have a smaller overall carbon footprint than someone in an electric vehicle with a daily two hour commute who takes long drives out to the mountains to go camping with their family every weekend and charges their vehicle with electricity generated at a coal powered plant.

I'm going to drive my current car into the ground and then buy an EV in 10 or 15 years when they are more affordable. It's not exactly eco-friendly to scrap my current perfectly good car which also took a lot of non-renewable energy and resources to manufacture in the first place.

If you want to tax people, tax the ones buying new 2021 gas guzzlers knowing they get shitty miles per gallon.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

100. Not having another child has a bigger environmental impact...

... than NEVER driving a gasoline-powered car or flying on an airline. Yet we also give tax breaks to families with more children.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

And lots of people will never feel compelled to have no children, or even fewer children.

So this thread shouldn't get anyone too upset either way, to me. Reminds me of a married couple arguing about their differences in penny-pinching when family members are blowing loads of money on other things.

[meadowlander]

101. Thank you, exactly.

You can't look at one trait or behaviour in a complete lack of context and say one person is a "freeloader" and the other is doing their part.

Someone who is vegetarian, child-free and practices minimal consumerism and energy coonservation but needs an older beater car to get around sometimes is doing at least as much for the planet, if not more, than an average suburban middle-class family with two kids and pets who go shopping all the time but drive an EV.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

102. Agreed. nt

[StarfishSaver]

104. Exactly

[NickB79]

109. The new IPCC report says we're pretty well fucked

A draft report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that unless drastic and immediate action is taken to limit greenhouse gas emissions and keep global temperatures from rising further, life on earth is poised for a catastrophic reckoning.

The 4,000-page draft, a copy of which was obtained by Agence France-Presse, states that mankind may have already missed its opportunity to keep the climate from passing a series of thresholds that will further spur the warming of the planet.

Like I said previously in this thread, the actions we need to take to stop this would be considered draconian by most Americans. So, we're not gonna do nearly enough. Say hello to 4C by the end of this century.

https://news.yahoo.com/climate-change-tipping-points-are-upon-us-draft-un-report-warns-the-worst-is-yet-to-come-185803244.html