-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Should EVs have efficiency standards?
- Thread starter juliusa
- Start date
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Which would leave workers in the oil, gas and coal sectors high and dry... IMO we need funding specifically directed at assisting those workers. The credits are designed to be distributed equally... not targeted toward former fools fuel peddlers.
How is a Carbon tax / credit system not just another form of regulation designed to reduce carbon emissions?
Nonsense. With low unemployment there are plenty of jobs, and there will be a transition over time.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
It is a single system where the government does not choose winners and losers - carbon is the only loser. No special deals for EVs vs fuel cell cars. No tax credit for installing solar panels.
Economics chooses the winners and losers. Efficient allocation of resources.
Carbon tax/credit won't change what is already happening, so no worse off. Perhaps even slow it down by ending the war on coal, and starting a war on carbon.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
.... yeah.... that's why I'd like to see them make things BETTER with targeted assistance and honesty. Gid rid of the morons in government lying to coal workers that 'coal is coming back'. It's not.
This...
Coal left Appalachia devastated. Now it’s doing the same to Wyoming.
Leads to this...
Energy Regulator's Order Could Boost Coal Over Renewables, Raising Costs for Consumers
Then everyone loses...
Which is still a form of regulation. A free-market economy is still regulated, it's just that the regulation is indirect (unlike, say, a planned economy). The CAFE standards are a form of indirect regulation, in that they set goals but do not say how you achieve them.
Correct - not a planned economy. What is the purpose of CAFE standards - carbon reduction? By addressing each aspect of carbon individually (cars, trucks, heating oil/ng, coal power, ng power, etc) we are sub-optimizing the allocation of resources. If we could spend $1 in one sector and reduce carbon by 1 lb, and spend $1 in another sector and reduce carbon by 2 lbs, wouldn't the planet be better off if we spent the $1 where it would reduce carbon more?
Yes, that is what happens with regulatory bodies like this - they cater to special interests and everyone loses.
Sounds like your position is that we shouldn’t have a separate efficiency standard for EVs, then. Because a second set of standards would have a much lower ROI.
Correct!! But even if we spend $1Trillion to save 1kWh of electricity, won't that help the planet? All kWhs matter.
Separate regulations sub-optimize ROI, and maximize carbon savings.
I guess your initial question has been answered, then, and you've provided yours - you prefer carbon tax and dividend, and if efficiency regulations are in place, you prefer no special efficiency regulations for EVs.Correct!! But even if we spend $1Trillion to save 1kWh of electricity, won't that help the planet? All kWhs matter.
Separate regulations sub-optimize ROI, and maximize carbon savings.
Shall I close the thread?
Totally agree, which is why indirect typically wins out since you have everyone innovating in a space instead of just the regulators. I wasn't saying CAFE standards are good, or are aimed at carbon reduction, just that they were an example of indirect regulation.
Should boilers have efficiency/emissions standards? Same standard apply to oil and gas boilers??
Should power plants have efficiency/emissions standards? Same standard apply to coal and gas power plants??
Should cars have efficiency/emissions standards? Same standard apply to ICE and EVs??
Should the same standard apply to existing boilers/power plants/cars as to new ones??
What should the standards be?
Currently, all of these questions get answered by politicians getting money from lobbyists representing special interests. No concern for cost. No concern for the planet.
That is what I oppose, and why I support a carbon tax/credit. The only decision for the politicians would be how much and how fast.
Should power plants have efficiency/emissions standards? Same standard apply to coal and gas power plants??
Should cars have efficiency/emissions standards? Same standard apply to ICE and EVs??
Should the same standard apply to existing boilers/power plants/cars as to new ones??
What should the standards be?
Currently, all of these questions get answered by politicians getting money from lobbyists representing special interests. No concern for cost. No concern for the planet.
That is what I oppose, and why I support a carbon tax/credit. The only decision for the politicians would be how much and how fast.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Better regulation is better than no regulation. That's axiomatic
..... you seem like someone that has gone without dinner more than once because one person wanted one thing and you wanted something different....
Have you ever heard of 'compromise'? Removing regulations from everything because you can't get regulations on something that should have them is more than a little bit silly... don't you think?
Fine. But it is the special interests doing the regulating, for their interests - not for the interests of the people or the planet.
Sen. Warren to Delaney: Why Would Anybody Run For President Just To "Talk About What We Can't Do"
Let's agree on the right approach, then be whores to the special interests and compromise so we can get something done.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
For every example of where the system broke there are two more where we should all be grateful it was there. Look at Thalidomide. The special interests wanted it on the US market. The FDA said 'wait' and saved thousands of lives. Boeing didn't ground the 737 on their own... they were forced into it. Point is the objective should be FIXING the system to make it work (Clearly it can) instead of burning down the house because the dog tracked dirt on the carpet.......
The 'right approach' is dinner. The right approach is what we can get through that reduces CO2 emissions. If we can't get a carbon tax I'll settle for a Renewable Portfolio Standard or PTC for wind or ITC for solar. Whatever lowers CO2 emissions.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
So we'd all be better off if the FDA had allowed Thalidomide into the US to cause thousands of birth defects?
Meet Louise and Darren... they could not disagree more...
Similar threads
