SF sues oil companies because of climate change

[nwdiver]

Economic forces are already driving the transition to renewables.

Reality disagrees... the vast majority of renewables exist due to government incentives. The minority of renewable projects that have been completed because they were able to compete were only enabled by economies of scale achieved by subsidized projects.

Do you really think Norway has more EVs because of the 'free market'? LOL. Do you really think Germany has more Solar PV than Texas because of the 'free market'? LOL....

The false notion that the free market alone can fix this mess is an EXTREMELY dangerous delusion.

 

[kort677]

More nonsense ... this is really about Social Engineering and income redistribution.

bingo, we have a winner

 

[McRat]

This should open the ability to file a class-action suit against San Francisco for deliberately building structures on unsafe ground that cost us Californians billions of dollars and climbing.

They should be forced to payback our money with interest, then they should tear down all the structures that are on unsafe ground.

And SF residents should sue the city for city vehicle pollution.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

to what purpose? should be become like the socialist european nations that fund their socialist policies by heavily taxing fuels? how well has that worked to lower consumption?

Well, the average fuel consumption of new cars sold in the EU in 2016, using a 6/5 consumption fudge from NEDC to EPA, was equivalent to about 38mpg. (The 2021 target is roughly equivalent to 47.8mpg.*)

Fuel consumption in private vehicles in the EU has increased at a much lower rate than private vehicle ownership and total distance traveled in private vehicles.

It's not because consumers there are more altruistic than consumers in the USA. It's simply that the high fuel taxes make EU consumers buy more efficient vehicles. A simple comparison of engine displacement and efficiency of similar models is enough to show the effect on consumers.

* That'll be why all the German manufacturers are happy to target 2019 and 2010 for their improved EVs. They don't need to sell them until then.

 

[nwdiver]

bingo, we have a winner

What would you propose we do? Sit back and let the free market drive us all off the climate cliff?

 

[skitown]

I think a salient issue is that we don’t have the stomach to get rid of any subsidies, and there’s effectively an error in our economy where negative externalities get a free ride. Historically it’s been more politically expedient to layer on additional subsidies for renewables and EVs to try and level the playing field, than it’s been to apply a carbon tax or attempt to account for these negative externalities. I find it unfortunate.

The degree two which a person thinks that CO2 is actually a negative externality that is unfairly priced seems to totally dictate how one thinks it should be addressed. If they think it’s a big negative externality, they will want to incentivize it accordingly, and vice versa.

Regardless, if there’s one thing I believe in, it’s economic incentives. Crafting good ones (that sunset) is the real trick.

 

[FlatSix911]

What would you propose we do? Sit back and let the free market drive us all off the climate cliff?

Do you believe in Unicorns ... do you believe that government control is the best way to allocate our resources? i.e. Venezuela...
Allow the invisible hand of the free market to transition to renewables ... many Auto makers have already announced their EV roadmap.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

A revenue neutral carbon tax has two goals. Make fossil fuels more expensive and lessen the pain on low income people by redistributing the funds collected to them. Someone making $25k/yr might have to pay $500 more per year in fuel costs but if they get $700/yr in Carbon dividends they'll be just fine. Someone making $100k/yr driving a H2 isn't gonna be happy... maybe they need to chose a more responsible vehicle. Which is the objective.

Carbon tax distribution should _not_ be targeted to lessen impact on any particular group. The only sense it which people on low incomes should be favored would be if distribution were per capita for the sake of simplicity. People on low incomes still have decisions to make.

The need for a carbon tax is based on negative externalities, so any carbon tax is a pricing correction. A pricing correction is a cost-of-living correction and it should be handled as any other cost of living change would be handled, such as by a change in the minimum wage or tax allowances.

 

[nwdiver]

... many Auto makers have already announced their EV roadmap.

Wonder if that has anything to do with this.... meh... I'm sure it's just another coincidence....

Remember the EV1? What ever happened to it? Oh yeah... GM recalled and crushed them once CA removed the mandate....

Carbon tax distribution should _not_ be targeted to lessen impact on any particular group.

Unfortunately that's the only way it's workable w/o crushing the economy. I wouldn't be overly effected because I was able to buy a Tesla and solar panels. The single mom down the street driving a truck to work isn't so lucky.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Do you believe in Unicorns ... do you believe that government control is the best way to allocate our resources? i.e. Venezuela...
Allow the invisible hand of the free market to transition to renewables ... many Auto makers have already announced their EV roadmap.

But electrification isn't happening because of the free market. Electrification is happening because of government policy in China, the EU, Norway, and the USA.

Free markets don't work well at a societal level unless the consumer sees direct benefits that align with benefits to society. A free market in vehicles would give us what we had: terrible pollution and inefficiency.

 

[FlatSix911]

But electrification isn't happening because of the free market. Electrification is happening because of government policy in China, the EU, Norway, and the USA.

Free markets don't work well at a societal level unless the consumer sees direct benefits that align with benefits to society. A free market in vehicles would give us what we had: terrible pollution and inefficiency.

Your logic is flawed ... EVs have economic parity with ICE vehicles.

 

[nwdiver]

Your logic is flawed ... EVs have economic parity with ICE vehicles.

Um.... no.... not even close. A Nissan LEAF is $35k and a comparable ICE car is ~$20k. How is that parity?

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Your logic is flawed ... EVs have economic parity with ICE vehicles.

EVs do not have economic parity at all.

Take away high fuel taxes.
Take away HOV lane access and toll-free driving.
Take away tax credits, POS deductions and incentives.
Take away benefit in kind reductions.
Take away special access to registrations in China.
Take away ZEV mandates.
Take away fuel economy/emissions mandates.

The result would be very few manufacturers selling PEVs.
To see the dependencies you can see how the shape of various markets depends on incentives.

 

[skitown]

Regardless if right or wrong for political/power or moral reasons, does this group see historical US military intervention/spending in oil nations (think Gulf Wars) as subsidizing oil in any way? If no, why not? If yes, does this subsidization seem fair to EV & renewables?

 

[LosAltosChuck]

Since cement production has one of the largest carbon footprints, perhaps we should sue SF for continued use of concrete in sidewalks, bridges, and buildings. While we’re at it, time to sue the farmers, because of cow flatulence. Of course if we go there, we should sue each other, for the same reason. But vegans produce more flatulence than meat eaters, so they should be the first target.

While we’re at it, if we’re targeting farts, can we ban passing gas on airplanes?

 

[nwdiver]

Since cement production has one of the largest carbon footprints, perhaps we should sue SF for continued use of concrete in sidewalks, bridges, and buildings. While we’re at it, time to sue the farmers, because of cow flatulence. Of course if we go there, we should sue each other, for the same reason. But vegans produce more flatulence than meat eaters, so they should be the first target.

While we’re at it, if we’re targeting farts, can we ban passing gas on airplanes?

Did any of those people/organizations discover that what they were doing was harmful then lie about the harm?

 

[FlatSix911]

Incorrect, a false comparison ... compare a $35K Model 3 to a BMW 3 series

Um.... no.... not even close. A Nissan LEAF is $35k and a comparable ICE car is ~$20k. How is that parity?

Incorrect again ... ICE vehicles have enjoyed massive economic subsidies for the last 100 years

EVs do not have economic parity at all.

Take away high fuel taxes.
Take away HOV lane access and toll-free driving.
Take away tax credits, POS deductions and incentives.
Take away benefit in kind reductions.
Take away special access to registrations in China.
Take away ZEV mandates.
Take away fuel economy/emissions mandates.

The result would be very few manufacturers selling PEVs.
To see the dependencies you can see how the shape of various markets depends on incentives.

 

[nwdiver]

Incorrect, a false comparison ... compare a $35K Model 3 to a BMW 3 series

So you're just gonna ignore the bottom ~75% of the market? Most people don't buy a 3 series car... that's not parity.

If ALL EV subsidies were pulled do you really think they would keep taking market share? Your free market god can't save us from climate change. That kind of blind faith is dangerous.

 

[LosAltosChuck]

Did any of those people/organizations discover that what they were doing was harmful then lie about the harm?

I cannot count the number of times the producer of a truly world class smelly fart has denied doing so, even when surrounded by gagging individuals.

 

[nwdiver]

I cannot count the number of times the producer of a truly world class smelly fart has denied doing so, even when surrounded by gagging individuals.

All kidding aside. What Exxon and the other oil majors did was fraud and they need to be held to account. It was no different than what the tobacco majors did and they've settled for >$200B. The cost of delayed action due to the fraud committed by Exxon and others is easily >10x that.